.s^. 


<A^ 


...Q. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


w 


/. 


e^ 


f/i 


f/. 


1.0 


I.I 


il.25 


l^|28 

150     *^^ 

■  IS 

It    i-io 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.4    11.6 


1  iiuiuglauiiHj 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEu'TER.N.Y.  14S80 

(V16)  872-4503 


> 


■%'^\*.  "V^" 


& 


C/j 


v> 


m^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiq 


ues 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notas/Nocos  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couvertura  de  oouieur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag^e 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  pelltcul^e 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  da  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  oit  noirel 

Coloured  plates  and/or  Illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Rslii  avec  d'autres  documents 


D 


D 


D 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serree  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  da  la 
distorsion  ie  long  dd  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pagas  blanches  ajouties 
lors  dune  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  cas  pages  n'ont 
pas  iti  filmdes. 

Additional  commants:/ 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  enemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  iii  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  cidtails 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-itre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographiqua,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mithode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 


D 

D 

n 
n 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d^color^es,  tachet^es  ou  piquees 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachees 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  inigale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuiilet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  c^t  it6  fiim^es  ^  nouveau  de  faqon  a 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 
Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu*  ci-dessous. 
10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


e 

dtails 
8  du 
lodifier 
r  une 
Image 


rrata 
o 


lelure, 

I  a 


3 


32X 


Th«  copy  fiimad  hara  has  baan  raproducad  thanks 
to  tha  g^narosity  of: 

L^islature  du  Quebec 
Qudbec 


Tha  imagaa  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  baat  quality 
possjbia  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibiiity 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  Icaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacificationa. 


Original  capias  in  pn'itad  papar  covara  ara  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illustratad  I  .tpraa- 
sion,  or  tha  bacit  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  arginal  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
firat  paga  with  a  printad  or  illustratad  Impraa- 
siorj,  and  anding  on  tha  !aat  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illustratad  imprasalon. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  — «»(maaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  V  (moaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appllaa. 

Maps,  platea.  charts,  ate.  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratioa.  Thoaa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axpoaura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  loft  hand  cornar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  fram«.s  aa 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrama  iiluatrata  tha 
mathod: 


1 

2 

3 

L't^^xamplaira  film*  fut  raproduit  grfica  A  la 
gtnirositA  da: 

L^islature  du  Quebec 

Quebec 


Laa  imagaa  suivantaa  ont  M  raproduitas  avac  la 
plua  grand  soin.  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattat*  da  I'axampiaira  film«,  at  an 
conformiti  avac  laa  conditiona  du  contrat  da 
fllmaga. 

Lae  axamplairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvertura  en 
papiar  aat  imprimte  sont  filmte  an  commanpant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  par  la 
darniira  paga  qui  comporta  una  emprainta 
d'Impraaaion  ou  d'iiluatration,  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  salon  la  cas.  Tous  las  autras  axamplaires 
origiriaux  sont  filmte  en  commandant  par  la 
prami^ra  paga  qui  comporta  una  empreinta 
d'Impraaaion  ou  d'lllustration  at  en  tarminant  par 
la  darni^ra  paga  qu:  comporta  una  te«la 
amprainta. 

'Jn  daa  symboiaa  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
damiAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha,  salon  la 
caa:  la  symbols  — ^  signifia  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbols  V  signifia  "FIN". 

Lsa  cartaa.  planchas.  tableaux,  etc..  pauvent  4tra 
filmte  i  daa  taux  da  reduction  diff^rants. 
Lorsqua  la  document  eat  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
raproduit  an  un  saul  clich«.  il  est  fUmi  i  partir 
do  I'angia  sup^riaur  gaucha,  da  gaucha  it  droita. 
at  dc  haut  en  baa.  en  prenant  le  nombra 
d'Imagaa  nicassaira.  Las  diayrammas  suivants 
illustrant  la  m^thoda. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

I 


THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 


REVISION 

A    DUTY   AND   NECESSITY. 


The  Departure 

FROM  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  REFORMERS  MADE 

IN   THE    REVISIONS   nv   ELIZABETH 

AND  CHARLES  XL 


^n  Dislorical  litqiiirg— |n  Ktao  feriura 

DKI.IVERKD  IN 

OTTAWA,   TORONTO,   PITTSBURGH,  BROOKLYN,  &  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


REV.    MASON    GALLAGHEI\^, 

Presbyter  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 


NEW   YORK: 
D.    A.    WOODWORTH,    96    NASSAU    STREET. 

1874. 


iiin 


To  (he  Rfv.  Mason  Cam-aohek  .- 

Dkar  Sir  :— Wc,  the  undersigned,  having  liEtened  with  the  great- 
est interest  to  the  able  and  exhaustive  lectures  delivered  by  you  on  the 
I2th  and  19th  iuHtant,  concerning  the  "Revision  "  and  "Unprotest- 
antizing  "  of  the  Hook  of  Common  Prayer,  do  most  earnestly  request 
that  you  will,  at  a  very  early  day,  have  the  same  published  in 
pamphlet  form  for  general  distribution  and  perusal.  We  do  feel  that 
the  said  lectures  contain  much  information  of  the  most  valuable 
nature,  which  is  practically  hidden  from  the  general  public,  and  their 
publication,  therefore,  cannot  but  serve  a  good  purpose. 

OlLiwa,  20///  April,  1874, 


\  I 


Ar.KXANDER  BURRITT 
A,  ROWE. 


^  Chinch  Wardens. 


Thomas  H.  Kirnv, 
Ai.KREDj.  Parker, 
Thomas  Hement, 
D.  W.  Coward, 
C.  E.  Anderson, 

R.  A,  liRADLEV, 

W.  A.  MacAgv, 
W.  H.  Tracy, 
H.  Alexander, 
Z.  Wilson. 


Vestrymen, 


The  Hon.  D.  Christie, 

President  of  the  Senate, 

Dominion  of  Canada. 

The  Hon.  R.  R.  Dickey,  Senator. 

"       Alexander  Vidal,  Senator. 

James  Johnson, 

Assistant  Commissioner  of  Customs. 


I 


Patf,u:;ox,  N.  J.,  May  1st,  i874' 

To  Alexander  Hurritt,  Esq.,  A.  Rowe,  Esq.,  Church  Wardens;  Thos. 
H.  Kirby,  Esq.,   Alfred  J.    Parker,  Esq.,    and  others.  Vestrymen; 
The  Hon.   David  Christie,   President  of  the   Senate,  Dominion  of 
Canada;    Hon.    R.   B.   Dickey,  Hon.   Alexander  Vidal,  Senators; 
James  Johnson,  Esq.,  Assistant  Com.  of  Customs: 
Gentlemen;— If  the  pleasure  I  received  in  exposing  the  process 
by  which  the  work  of  the  Reformers  under  Edward  VI.  was  deformed 
and  defiled  by  three  ungodly  Monarchs  and  a  degenerate  Clergy,  was 
shared  by  my  large,  intelligent,  and  earnest  audiences,  I  am  abund- 
antly satisfied.     The  evils  which  prevail,  and  which  have  driven  you 
to  the  duty  of  restoring  the  work  of  the  Reformers,  is  owing  mainly  to 
the  general  ignorance  which   prevails  with   respect   to  the  manner  in 
which  that  work  was  tampered  with. 

How  m.iny  of  the  Clergy  and  of  the  Laity  are  aware  that  the  Cate- 
chism of  King  Edward,  the  ripest  and  choicest  work  of  the  Reformers, 
the  "Reprobatus  Catechismus  "  of  Mary,  published  six  weeks  before 
the  King's  death,  has  been  practically  suppressed  in  the  Church  of 
England? 

How  many  are  familiar  with  the  seven  changes  made  by  Elizabeth, 
deliberately,  in  the  direction  of  Rome,  by  which  she  kept  her  Roman 
Catholic  subjects  in  the  parish  churches  for  over  ten  years  ? 

How  many  know  that  Elizabeth  refused  to  have  the  Articles,  the 
Protestant  section  of  her  Prayer  Book,  published,  until  she  had  broken 
irrevocably  with  the  Pope  ? 

How  many  have   studied   the  stealthy  and  insidious  Romish  altera- 
tions by  which  the   unprincipled   Commissioners  of  1662   sought  to 
gratify  their  treacherous  and  profligate   King,  and  thereby  to  disgust, 
repel,  and  drive  out   from   their  pulpits,  and  church,  the  most  accom- 
plished, dwoted,  and  enlightened  of  their  clergy  ? 
^       That  vindictive  and  reckless  trio— Sheldon,  Gunning,  and  Morley— 
who  engineered  the  Five  Mile  and  Conventicle  Acts,  and  the  diabolical 
proceedings  of  St.    Bartholomew's   Day,  were   the   successors  in  the 
same  respect  of  Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  as  Annas  and  Caiaphas 
were  of  Moses   and   Aaron.     They  resembled   their   illustrious  pre- 
decessors who  perished  amid  Roman  flames,  in  defence  of  the  Protest- 
antism which  they  disgraced,  as  much  as  the  monarch  on  whom  they 
fawned  resembled  the  pious  Edward. 

The  present  clamor   against  the  Revision   of   the  Book  set  forth 

by    these    infamous    characters,    and    the    removal  of    the   causes 

of  the  present  tide  of   Ritualism,   Popery,    and   Priestcraft,  which 

is  sweeping  over  the  Episcopal  Church,  is  as  senseless  as  the  uproar  at 

3 


•api 


Ephesus,  against  the  interference 
i  silversmiths. 


and  the  trade  of  the 


of  Paul,  with  the  worship  of  Diana, 


There  is  evidently  little  desire  to  know  anything  that 


might  lead 


will  not  bear  an  investigation.  "iswry  wnicn 

The  masterly  work  of  Fisher  on  "Liturgical  Purity,"  which  I  fir,f 
met  with  m  your  magnificent  Parliament  Library,  puWishedsixten 
years  ago  ,s  now  out  of  print,  and  cannot  be  obtained  FrTnki; 
Rising-s  "Romanizing  Germs  in  the  Book  of  Common  P  aye  " 
one  ofthe  ablest,  and  the  most  timely  work  written  by  an  Am  Sn 
Episcopal  clergyman,  has  been  practically  suppressed  by  the  EVa  '  el- 
•cal  Episcopal  party.  It  dared  to  assail  the  Liturgical  Idol,  and  U 
doom  was  thereby  sealed.  '         '" 

The    present    crop    of  Puseyism,   Ritualism,   Sacerdotalism,   and 
Sacramentananism  which  has  startled  the  Protestant  Episcopa  Church 
-s  the  natural,  legitimate  and   necessary  result  of  the  use  of  a  iS 
and  offices,   intentionally   Romanized;  and   the  crop   will  flourish  as 
long  as  the  seed  is  sown,  even  by  professedly  Protestant  hands 

nlrl  K  '  '.  T^  °^  ^''■°'''"  ^^  "*  ''»^'  '^^^"  renewed.  One 
Bishop  has  been  found  equal  to  the  occasion.  The  return  to  Reforma 
tion  times  has  commenced.  You  have  had  the  wisdom,  grace  Tml 
courage  to  engage  in  the  work.  May  your  example  be  widely  fo 
owed  and  may  the  lectures  you  have  so  favorably  received  and  have 
so  kindly  requested  for  publication,  be  instrumental  in  throwing  light 
on  a  subject  of  an  importance  as  vast  as  the  ignorance  concerning  ili, 
widespread  and  lamentable  I  '^umij,  ii  is 

I  am,  with  great  respect, 
Yours,  in  the  defence  and  confirmation  of  the  Gospel, 

MASON  GALLAGHER, 
Presbyter  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church. 


k^mm^mk 


►  I 


PEEFACE. 


Crossino  Fulton  Ferry  recently,  I  met  one  of  the  most  intelli- 
gent Evangelical  Episcopalians  of  Brooklyn.  I  asked  him,  "  If 
the  Episcopalian  laity  were  intending  much  Ioniser  to  endure  the 
evils  which  were  affecting  their  Church  through  the  presence  of 
the  '  Romanizing  Germs'  in  their  Prayer  Book.  Would  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  employ  the  only  remedy,  i.  e.,  revise  the  Book?" 
He  said,  "He  did  not  think  they  would  move  in  the  matter,— that 
Episcopal  laymen  did  not  generally  trouble  themselves  about  Ec- 
clesiastical matters,— that  they  minded  the'r  worldly  business, 
and  left  the  settlement  of  doctrinal  questions  to  their  Ministers  or 
Priests,— that  the  Convention  might  handle  the  Ritualists  se- 
verely to  save  appearances,  but  they  would  do  nothing  more." 

The  issue  to-day  is  not  between  the  Ritualists  and  the  Re- 
formed Episcopalians,  but  it  is  between  the  Romanizing  tenden- 
cies of  the  present  Prayer  Book  and  the  Reformers. 

The  crushing  out  of  a  few  prominent  Ritualists  would  be  as 
efifective  in  removing  the  spreading  evil  as  lopping  off  some  of 
the  taller  stalks  would  successfully  rid  a  field  of  Canada  thistles. 

The  roofs  of  error  are  in  the  Prayer  Book,  and  Ri'.ualism  and 
kindred  errors  are  the  legitimate  and  necessary  outgrowth. 
These  roots  must  be  gtubbed  up,  and  that  work  the  Reformed 
Episcopal  Church  has  attempted.  Revision,  thus,  became  to  us 
a  necessity. 

It  is  lamentably  astonishing  to  behold  the  apathy  of  the  laity 
to  an  influence  which  is  logically  certain  to  land  some  of  their 
children  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  They  may  be  roused  at  the 
General  Convention  to  attempt  Revision,  but  the  superincumbent 


S.^-wemm^m 


fetfc-'?»''^^«^^kti 


^  PREFACE. 

weight  of  the  Hierarchical  pressure  will  probably  smother  all  efforts 
of  the  kind.  Ecclesiastics  have  never  been  known  in  history  to 
yield  prerogatives,  when  once  secured,  unless,  like  the  British 
House  of  Lords,  who  passed  the  Reform  Hill,  after  a  hint  from 
the  Iron  Duke,  that  "if  ihey  threw  out  that  measure,  the  people 
would  throw  overboard  the  House  of  I-ords." 

If  the  General  Convention  can  be  induced,  after  repeated  re- 
fusals, to  yield  Revision,  the  good  result  will  be  mainly  due  to  the 
establishment  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  and  then  the 
wisdom,  courage  and  faithfulness  of  Bishop  Cummins  in  inaugu- 
rating this  grand  enterprise  will  be  so  far  acknowledged. 

If  the  boon  is  again  denied,  then  the  duty  of  every  Evangelical 
Protestant  man  and  woman  will  be  made  clear,  to  abandon  an  In- 
stitution unmistakably  and  hopelessly  incapable  of  amendment 
or  reform. 

In  the  words  of  one  of  the  most  venerable  and  respected  of  the 
Episcopal  laity:  "We  must  say  that,  but  for  Bishop  Cummins' 
brave  step,  there  would  be  no  hope.  Now  there  may  be  some 
hope,  and  we  ought  to  thank  him  for  opening  up  a  place  of  refuge 
congenial  to  our  feelings,  should  we  be  driven  from  our  Church. 
....  It  api  ears  to  us  his  reasons  are  strong,  and  that  to 
be  consistent,  in  the  present  state  of  our  Church's  laws,  all  our 
Evangelical  Bishops  ought  to  follow  his  example."  * 

Thus,  in  any  case,  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  will  prove 
a  great  blessing,  and  its  founders  will  receive  the  encomiums  of 
posterity. 

The  facts  presented  in  these  Lectures  will  be  new  generally  to 
the  laib-,  and  to  many  of  the  clerg)-,  as  they  are  not  contained  in 
worl-,s  .isually  accessible,  and  are  not  even  brought  before  the 
minds  of  the  youths  in  our  Theological  Seminaries  of  the  High 
Church  persuasion. 

MASON  GALLAGHER. 
Paterson,  September  4th,  1874. 


*  Stewart  Brown,  Esq. 


LECTUEE   I. 


HOW  THE   BOOK    OF  COMMON  PRAYER  HAS  BEEN 

UN  PROTESTANTIZED  AT  ITS  SEVERAL 

REVISIONS. 


I  AM  entering  on  a  subject,  concerning  which  I  am  convinced 
there  exists  generally  a  profound  ignorance. 

I  asked  an  intelligent  layman  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  "  Do 
you  suppose  that  one  Episcopalian  in  fifty  is  acquainted  with  the 
several  changes  made  in  the  Prayer  Book  ?  the  occasions  of  its 
several  revisions  ?  the  alterations  severally  effected  ?"  He  re- 
plied, "  I  do  not  believe  that  one  man  in  a  hundred  is  familiar 
with  them." 

Bishop  Short,  who  wrote  one  of  the  most  candid  histories  of 
the  English  Church  which  has  been  prepared  by  an  Episcopal 
writer,  states  in  his  Preface  that  the  reason  which  induced  him  to 
undertake  the  work  was,  that  after  he  was  ordained,  while  tutor 
in  college,  "  he  discovered  that  the  knowledge  of  English  Eccle- 
siastical history  which  he  possessed  was  very  deficient.  ...  He 
was  distressed  that  his  knowledge  of  the  sects  among  the  Philo- 
sophers of  Athens  was  greater  than  his  information  on  questions 
which  affect  the  Church  of  England."  Such  is  the  result  of  much 
of  the  education  in  our  Colleges  and  Universities. 

We  are  about  to  examine  the  history  of  a  volume  which  is  the 
Religious  Service  Book  of  twelve  and  a  half  millions  of  people 
speaking  the  English  language,  who  possess  an  amount  of  edu- 
cation and  intelligence  equal  to  the  average  of  the  most  enlight- 
ened people.    Fifty-seven  millions  of  Protestants  speak  the  English 


jffijjraiiiiiii'i 


•  HOW  THE  BOOK  OP  COMMON  PRAYER 

CaTholic!:     "^'^  *""'"""  °'  English-speaking  people  are  Roman 

This  Prayer  Book  has  undergone  five  revisions  in  Endand 
besides  two  in  this  country.  ^"r"'"". 

because"  n;r''1  """  ''Z  ''""■°"''  ^'^^  '"^^^  ''"P-^^''^"*  f^''^'^ 
because  the  w.sdom  and  moderation  of  d.e  Sovereign  and  the 

districts    "^^  "''  "°'  '''"'''^  ^^  '^'  ^'^'^^y  ""^  '^'^y  of  the  rural 

bLotrf'  ^^^  "'*""'''  ^'^  ^''-'^^•^^^''  ^y  ^  combination   of 

Digotry  and  ignorance. 

Time  will  not  allow  me  to  dwell  on  the  condition  of  England 
a  the  penod  ,n  which  the  original  Prayer  Book  was  framed  in 
^.,t  I  ,  P^P"''-^"""  numbered  three  millions,  rude  and  unedu 
cated.  Books  were  scarce,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  the  masses. 
It  to,.k  the  wages^  of  a  j  ear  to  purchase  a  copy  of  the  Bible.  The 
nat  on  emerged  from  the  darkness  and  bondage  of  Rome,  much 
as  the  Hebrews  came  out  of  the  servitude  of  Kgypt 

Henry  VIII.  had  thrown  off  the  usurped  yoke  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  so  long  borne  by  his  predecessors.  He  rejected  no 
Roman  doctrme.  He  burnt  at  the  stake  those  who  denied  the 
doctrme  of  transubstantiation. 

His  successor,  Edward  VI.,  was  educated  a  Protestant  by 
ArchbKshop  Cranmer,  who  had  slowly  e.nergcd  from  the  mists  of 
Roma,  error.  Educated  a  priest,  the  efforts  of  Ridley  had  con- 
vmced  Cranmer  of  the  absurdity  and  blasphemy  of  Transubstan- 
tiat.on  and  at  last  he  enjoyed  the  liberty  with  which  Christ 
makes  his  people  free.  ^* 

Edward,  who  died  in  his  17th  year,  in  1553,  was  the  most  devout 
monarch   who  has  occupied  the  throne   of   England       He  has 
been  justly  compared  to  Josiah,  the  youthful  reformer  of  Israel 
for  her  Protestantism,  England  is  more  indebted   to   him   thin 
to  any  other  king.     Since  his  death.  Protestantism,  comparatively 
has  made  no  general  advance  in  the  Church,  to  which  he  gave 
her  Book  of  Common  Prayer.     If  his  principles  had  pervade  1 
his  Church  at  the  present  day,  some  of  you  who  hear  me  would 
not  have  been  compelled,  as  you  have  been,  for  the  sake  of  vour 
souls,  and  the  safety  of  your  children,  to  come  out  of  her  pale  and 
to  endeavor  to  restore  the  Church  to  the  condition  in  which  'the 
Pious  Edward  left  it ! 


HAS  SEEN   UNPROTESTANTIZED.  $ 

The  first  Prayer  Book  of  F.dwart',  that  of  1549,  was  a  wonder- 
ful work,  considering  that  it  was  composed  by  men  who  had  most 
of  their  lives  held  and  advocated  the  doctrines  A  Rome. 

"  During  the  reign  of  this  pious  Prince  the  Reformers  attained 
what  was  for  them,  sedulously  trained  for  years  as  they  had  been 
in  Romish  error,  a  glorious  measure  of  Divine  Truth.  Discover- 
ing clearly  such  fundameiifal  doctrines  as  justification  by  faith 
they  did  not  at  once  get  rid  of  Roiaish  deceits." 

A  great  advance  in  Sciiptural  knowledge  and  sound  'V-ctrine 
was  made  by  the  Reformers  in  the  next  three  years,  as  evidenced 
by  the  Second  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  completed  in  155a.  In 
this  work  the  Reformers  had  called  in  the  aid  of  Peter  Martyr, 
formerly  a  monk  of  I'Morence  made  by  Cranmct,  Professor  of 
Divinity  at  Oxford,  and  of  Martin  Bucer  of  Germany,  placed  in  a 
similar  position  at  Canterbury.  John  Knox  and  Alasco,  and  other 
Reformers  were  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  work.  It  is 
the  best  Prayer  Book  which  England  has  produced  ;  far  better 
than  the  one  now  used  in  the  English  Church.  The  RomisL 
doctrines  and  practices  01'  the  Book  of  1549  were  expunged  from 
the  second  Book  of  1552. 

Their  First  Book,  mostly  a  translation  of  former  Liturgies, 
principally  that  of  Sarum,  and  of  Hermann  of  Cologne,  "  retained 
many  remnants  of  doctrines  and  practices  not  Apostolic,  but 
sanctioned  by  earlier  Church  traditions,  among  which  were  prayers 
for  the  dead,  the  forms  of  exorcisim  and  anointing  ;  with  the 
prayer  for  the  consecration  of  the  water,  the  idea  of  the  Sacrifice 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Communion  Table  being  called  an 
Altar  ;  the  mixed  Chalice,  and  Romish  Sacerdotal  Vestments,'' 
all  these  were  omitted  in  the  Second  Book.* 


* 
writes 


*  A.  J.  Stephens,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Common  Pr.nyer,  p.  78, 
ites  :  "  The  most  material  alterations  were  the  removal  of  a  few  ceremonies 
and  usajjes  retained  in  the  First  Hook,  some  of  which  appeared  to  have  been  at 
least  superfluous.  Such  in  the  office  of  ]5aptism  were  the  sign  of  the  cross 
made  0:1  the  child's  breast;  the  E.sorcism  in  the  form  of  Abjuration,  command- 
ing the  unclean  and  cursed  spirit  to  depart;  the  repetition  of  Immersion,  first 
dipping  the  right  side,  then  the  left,  then  the  face  towards  the  font ;  the 
putting  upon  the  child  his  (or  her)  white  vesture,  commonly  called  the  Chrism, 
with  the  address  to  the  child  on  the  occasion;  and  the  anointing  of  the  child 
with  the  prayer  for  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such,  likewise,  were  the 
sign  of  the  cross  in  Confirmation,  extreme  uncii  m  at  the  Visitation  of  the  sick. 
In  the  Churching  of  women,  the  part  of  the  last  Rubric,  concerning  the  Chrism 
was  omitted,  and  the  former  title,  Purification  of  Woman,  wns  abandoned. 
Prayers  forthe  dead,  both  in  the  Communion  and  Burial  Offices,  were  expunged." 


10 


HOtV  TttE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


The  Royal  Proclamation  to  the  Reformers,  November  8th, 
1548,  was  "to  stay  and  quiet  themselve?  la  men  content  to  follow 
authority,  and  not  enterprising  to  run  before,  and  so,  by  thdir 
rashness,  to  become  the  greatest  hinderers." 

THE  SECOND  BOOK  IMPERFECT. 

The  book  o:  1552,  which  has  been  made  less  Protestant  by 
every  successive  revioion,  our  American  revision  of  1789  included, 
was  far  from  being  perlect.  The  office  for  Infant  Baptism  is 
not  a  Scriptural  office.  "  It  begins  with  the  proposition  that  the 
subject  is  dead  in  sin,  the  water  is  sanctified  to  the  mystical 
washing  away  of  sin,  the  subject  is  baptized,  and  a  thanksgiving 
is  offered  for  the  regeneration  which  has  just  taken  place."*  The 
Fe  ,rrr\ers  of  Edward  were  never  able  to  divest  themselves  of  the 
Re  .1  error  which  confounds  Baptism  with  Regeneration.  Their 
m,  .  study  and  effort  was  to  arrive  at  clear  views  with  respect  to 
the  Lord's  Supper.  In  this  they  succeeded.  With  respect  to  the 
doctrine  of  Baptism  they  were  not  so  fortunate,  as  far  as  their 
views  are  presen  ed  in  the  Offices  for  Baptism. 

It  is  left  for  our  generation  to  construct  a  Baptismal  Office  in 
strict  accordance  with  Holy  Writ,  t 

Still,  some  of  the  Reformers  of  Edward  have  presented  clear. 
Scriptural  views  on  this  subject. 

Bishop  Hooper,  Edward's  favorite  preacher,  and  designed  by 
him  as  the  successor  to  Cranmer  '.n  the  Primacy,  teaches,  "Although 
Baptism  is  a  Sacrament  to  be  received,  and  honorably  used  by  all 
men,  yet  it  sanctifieth  no  man.  And  such  as  attribute  the  remis- 
sion  of  sins  to  the  external  sign  do  offend." 

Bishop  Latimer,  preaching  before  Edward,  said,  "  Man  must 
have  a  regeneration,  and  what  is  this  regeneration  ?  It  is  not  to 
be  christened  in  water,  as  these  firebrands  expound  John  iii.  3, 
and  nothing  else.  .  .  .  Our  new  birth  cometh  by  the  word 
of  the  Living  God,  by  the  word  of  God  preached  and  opened." 
Far  different  is  this  teaching  from  that  of  some  modern  bishops, 
and  that  put  into  the  hands  of  our  children  in  the  form  of 
devotional  books,  and  widely  circulated  in  this  country,  in  England 
and  in  Canada. 


*  Letter  of  Rev.  Marshall  B.  Smith  to  Bishop  Odenheimer. 

t  This  has  been  done  in  the  recent  Council  of  the  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church,  as  is  evident  in  the  Offices  of  their  Revised  Book, 


HAS  BEEN   UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


If 


If  Edward  had  lived  three  years  longer,  there  would  doubtless 
have  been  a  third,  a  still  more  thorough  and  complete  Revision. 
John  Alasco,  a  Protestant  convert  from  Poland,  of  noble  family, 
informs  us  that  Edward  and  his  council  were  anxious  to  effect  a 
far  more  thorough  and  extensive  Reformation  of  the  Church  of 
England.     He  says :  "  When  I  was  called  by  that  King,  and  when 
some  laws  of  the  country  stood  in  the  way,  that  it  was  not  possible 
that  the  rites  of  public  Divine  Worship  used  under  Popery  should 
be  immediately  purged  out,  though  it  was  what  the  King  himself 
desired  ;  and  while  I  was  earnestly  standing  up  for  the  Churches 
of  the  foreigners,  at  length  it  was  his  pleasure  that  the  public  rites 
in  the  English  Churches  should  be  reformed  by  certain  degrees,  as 
far  as  it  could  possibly  be  got  done  for  the  laws  of  the  kingdom  ; 
but  that  strangers,  who  were  not  so  strictly  obliged  by  the  laws  of 
the  kingdom  in  this  matter,  should  have  Churches  granted  them, 
wherein  they  might  freely  perform  all  things  according  to  apostolic 
doctrine  and  observation  only,  without  having  regard  to  the  rites 
of  the  country ;  and  that  by  this  means  it  would  come  to  pass 
that  the  English  Churches  would  be  excited  to  embrace  Apostoli- 
cal purity,  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  States  of  the  king- 
dom."    (Treatise  "  de  ordinatione  ecclesiarum,  &c.,  A.D.  1555.") 
Thirty-two  commissioners  were  appointed,  of  whom  Alasco  was 
one  to  draw  up  this  "Reformatio  legum  Ecclesiasticarum."  Alasco 
;s  described  in  the  Kings  patent  as  "  a  man  greatly  celebrated  for 
his  integrity,  innocence  of  life  and  manners,  and  of  uncommon 

^  The  Protestant  character  of  the  Second  Book  of  Edward  of 
i«2  imperfect  as  the  King  regarded  it,  will  be  made  evident 
from' the  ch?  ges  made  in  the  direction  of  Rome  by  those  who 

subsequently  revised  it.  ,    ,  u    u-     •  .     tvt 

Edward  died  in  1553,  and  ^as  succeeded  by  his  sister  Mary, 
who  as  all  know,  was  a  bigoted  Roman  Catholic.  Stimulated 
by  her  bishops  and  priests,  who  had  been  restrained  by  her  brother, 
she  fully  restored  the  religion  of  Rome  ;  burnt  at  the  stake 
Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  Hooper  and  Farrar,  the  foremost 
Protestant  bishops,  with  numerous  clergy  and  laymen,  to  the 
number  of  two  hundred,  who  refused  to  recant,  and  drove  from 
the  kingdom  those  whom  she  was  not  able  to  imprison  and  punish. 
The  old  mass-book  was  restored,  and  the  public  services  uni- 
versally  performed  according  to  the  Roman  ritual. 


...i*ia««a*»iW#»*5 


ta 


^fOlV  77 -E  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


distinguished  siste.  B^  ^  ^^T' :!r  '"^  "^"''^ 
corrupt  system  under  which  she  had  th'  ^^Y'"'^'^''^  ^°  '^' 
cated.  ''^''  ^'^^  misfortune  to  be  edu- 

THE  ACCESSION  OF  ELIZABETH 

estant.  But  we  rerd^hal-LTi  ;T'^,S:r's""  """'  '^  ^-^- 
attended  confession  and  mass  and  ^nf  f'^" ''^'^ '"""'^^'•'j' 
observances  of  Popery"  sTe  l^T  "°"^°""">  *°  ^'1  the  ritual 
Oglethorpe,  according  to  !he  "oT":'  'j '''  ^°""'^"  ^^'-^'-P 
which  High  Mass  is  a'n  essential  prtlfterlr'^"  '""■''^'^''  °^ 
throne  she  continued  to  pray  to  the  Virgtn  M  "  s?",'"  r°  ^'''' 
in  the  Real  presence ;  publicly  censurecU  orelth  .  ""'"^ 
against  it  in  her  presence  and  nmiir  ^   u  ""^^  P'^^^^^'^ 

its  favor.  She  retLedT^ucmxTht'"  k"  "'°  ^"^"'^^^  '" 
her  own  private  chapel  jrafurasf" 'T 
was  concerned  in  the  Severn!  r.fo  .  ^^  Bi.hop  Cox,  who  > 
and  Ehzabab,  decl!; fe  lo  efgrr^irto""'"  ^^"^^'  '''''''' 
saying:  «  I  most  humbly  su  ul  'm  '  t"  n  '''""."'' '"  '^'  ^"^^P^^^' 
wet  eyes,  that  ye  will  Zc^J^^ Z^!";^^/'"''"''''  ^'^'^ 
move  me.  that  I  daro  nm      •     ^    ^  *"^  ^°"siderations  which 

his  pious  soul  ,f  he  could  have  seen  iLT  '"'•''"''"""W  t""^  vexed 

New  York,  as  I  behel    VheTureuIr''" '" '''^'"''''' ''''''"''• 
their  backs  to  the  people  a  jiliZ.'^'^r. "''"'"'  ^"'""'-  ""h 
lighted  candles  oi  t^^^.^^:^^^" '''''• '-" 
s    =,  one  pHes.  in  ,he  ac,  of  adorfuon      I    '  he  e  e  nl™  '"'" 
all  this  in  a  so-called  Protf^stnnf  ru      u   u   •       ^'^'"ents,— and 
by  a  sincere  Proteseal,  CLL    u^f '  h""'"''  *'  '""'"'=''  '•=" 
those  who  were  '^•^s^ ^ZZ^^T  "^T '7'''"^ 
series  acted   in  „,her  churches  fn    haf  c ,  'w  h     "  T't 
co-.,ecrated  altars,  attended  by  false  pries,"    „         ,     T  "'«'' 
colors,  and  countenanced  by  ,hL  in  autS,.'"  "^'^  °'  "^^ 

her'Rott'ut^rir  ;r.hi  "i  ''"r  "-"^  ----^'^ '° 

attended  the  parChur  he    J  h  ttlt;  r^r''  '^'  '^'' 
for  the  first  ten  years  of  her  rebn      ,/'"'•'''"«  ""d  sacraments, 

.He  Prayer  Boo.^o  the  ^  ^L  ^"nSlt'Lt  fhunS 


! 


HAS  BEEN  UNPR07ESTANTIZED. 


n 


ministers,  who  had  served  under  Mary,  and  conformed  to  Popery, 
under  Elizabeth  all  remained  at  their  posts  and  used  the  Ritual, 
with  the  exception  of  two  hundred.  Not  one  in  forty  refused  to 
conform.  (Burnet,  Part  ii,  p.  720.)  As  the  Prayer  Book  now 
is  less  Protestant  than  then,  we  are  not  surprised  that  Ritualists 
and  Low  Papists  can  minister  in  the  communion  of  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  England,  and  in  this  country.  History  is  simply 
repeating  itself. 

In  what  a  spiritual  condition  must  England  have  been  with  a 
clergy  of  such  flexible  and  elastic  consciences.  Some  of  these 
ministers  could  not  sign  their  names.  Some  could  not  read  the 
Liturgy.  Some  years  after,  when  Elizabeth  had  imbibed  more 
Protestantism,  and  when  some  of  the  clergy  had  died  or  left  the 
country,  in  the  diocese  of  Bangor  there  was  no  preaching  what- 
ever; in  that  of  Norwich  there  were  four  hundred  and  thirty-four 
parish  churches  vacant ;  two-thirds  of  the  chuiches  in  the  diocese 
of  Ely  were  not  duly  served.  "  So  pitiable  and  to  be  lamented," 
said  Bishop  Cox,  "  is  the  face  of  this  diocese !  and  if  in  other 
places  it  be  so  too,  most  miserable  indeed  is  the  condition  of  the 
Church  of  England."     (Strype's  Parker,  pp.  143-4) 

THE  PRAYER  BOOK  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 

But  how  did  Elizabeth  succeed  in  making  the  Prayer  Book  so 
acceptable  to  her  Roman  Catholic  clergy  and  subjects  ?  In  the 
first  place,  as  Hume  states  :  "  She  retained  eleven  of  her  sister's 
councillors ;  but  in  order  to  balance  their  authority,  she  added 
tight  more,  who  were  known  to  be  inclined  to  the  Protestant  com- 
munion. .  .  .  The  forms  and  ceremonies  in  the  English  Liturgy^ 
as  they  bore  some  semblance  to  the  ancient  Service,  tended  still 
further  to  reconcile  the  Catholics  to  the  established  religion ;  and 
as  the  Queen  permitted  no  other  mode  of  worship,  and  at  the 
same  time  struck  out  everything  that  could  be  offensive  to  them 
in  the  Liturgy,  even  those  who  were  addicted  to  the  Romish 
communion,  made  no  scruple  of  attending  the  Established 
Church." 

Bishop  Tomline  writes:  "  Several  alterations  were  made  in  the 
Communion  service  and  rubric,to  conciliate  the  Roman  Catholics.'' 

The  Rubric  referred  to  is  thus  spoken  of  by  Hey! in,  a  High 
Church  historian  :  "  They  expunged  also  a  whole  Rubric  at  the 
end  of  the  Communion  service,  by  which  it  was  declared  that 


«**MfcBw?w»^  , 


ill 


14 


ffOlV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


..1,        ,    ,  ^"^  '^  s'g»'fication  of  the  humble  eratef.,1 

acknowIedg.nc   of  the  benefits  of  Christ,  given  theTet\fnto  te 

x::i::;s:;::::r^----^-.:r::;;^ 

the  sacmen^ta,  breadTn!?  ^^  ^ht^S/ ^e"^^^^^ 
regard  of  any  rea,  and  essential  presence  of^ChS^^^^^^^^ 

Another  alteration  in  the  Communion  service  was  with  respect 

est  ChrT       ""'"r"  '"''''  '^°^'>'-  '''°«d  of  ourTord 

''Which       7"''""   ''''  ""''''   ^"^  -"'  '-  everlasting  life" 
Which  words,"  says  Bishop  Burnet  "  had  h^^n  i  ft         •     f" 

second  Liturgy,  as  favoring  tLe  corp    al  p  el  ^too  ^^^^^    'h 

instead  o,  them,  these  words  were  ordered  to  be  utdTnh    H 

tnbut.on   of  that   sacrament:  ' Ta.e  and  e^  .^^      '  "  '  D w:!" 

this^     ^'c.     1  hey  now  joined  together  these  m  one 

Heyhn  writes:  'fThen  to  come  up  the  closer  to  those  of  the  • 

Church  o,  Rome  it  was  ordered  by  the  Queens  injunc^ns  tha 

the  sacra.ncntal  bread  (which  the  Book  requTed  only  to  be  m.de 

Lord's  Table  should  ^e  place'd^l^hereVlr  s'^d !  ^  Z 
accustomed  reverence   should  be  made  at  the  nam^o   Tesus 

Petinon  in  the  "i^ncTt^  2:::^^^^^ l^t  Zt 

::L7fTf/''''''^  ''-  tyrannyo'f  the  B^Cof  Home 

o         ''B:  tic'h'  ^"°™'^'^\g-^'  I-rd  deliver  us,' was  stricken 

the  nn..!r    Uf    ^omphance,"  sajs  Heylin,  "  and  the  expunging 

the  I  ap.sts  that  for  ten  years  they  generally  repaired  to  the 
pansh  churches  without  doubt  or  scruple."  So  much  for  th! 
changes  made  in  the  Zrfur,y,  in  the  direction  of  Rome  " 

THE   ARTICLES    CHANGED. 

But  what  other  alterations  were  made  ?    The  Ar/ic/es  th^  r.« 
st.tut,on  of  the  Church,  were  tampered  with  in  tt 'impon"; 
.ns  ances.     Cranmer  and  his  associates,  in  order  to  condemn  as 
clearly  as  possible  the  error  of  Sacramental  grace,  now  so  wide^ 


^iH^sBK^^ 


P'"'"^^^^^flli 


HAS  BEEN  UN  PROTESTANTIZED. 


IS 


taught  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  had  inserted  in  the 
articles  of  1553,  Art.  xxvi.,  these  words  :  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
gathered  his  people  into  a  society  by  sacraments,  very  few  in 
number,  most  easy  to  be  kept,  and  of  most  excellent  signification ; 
that  is  to  say,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  And  in  such 
only  as  worthily  receive  the  same,  they  have  a  wholesome  effect 
and  operation ;  not,  as  some  say,  ex  opere  operato,  which  terms, 
as  Ihey  are  strange  and  utterly  unknown  to  Holy  Scripture,  so  do 
they  yield  a  sense  which  savors  of  little  piety  and  of  much 
superstition." 

"  This  statement,"  writes  Nangle,  of  the  Church  of  Ireland,  in 
Irish  Church  Advocate,  March,  1874,  "  which  demolishes  the 
foundation  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  was  expunged  from  our 
Prayer  Book  in  the  reign  ot  Elizabeth,  and  the  following,  of  a 
totally  different  aspect,  was  substituted  for  it  :  "  Sacraments 
ordained  of  Christ  are  not  only  badges  or  tokens  of  Christian 
men's  profession,  but  rather  they  be  sure,  certain  witnesses  and 
effectual  signs  of  grace,"  &c. 

On  this  change,  Fisher,  in  his  work  on  Liturgical  Purity,  p.  207,* 
remarks :  "  The  same  false  tenderness  towards  the  corruptions 
of  the  old  superstitions  which  had  caused,  in  the  year  1559,  the 
admission  into  the  Communion  Office  of  the  Romanizing  doctrine 
of  the  Real  Presence,  as  well  as  the  omission  from  the  Litany  of 
anything  like  a  distinct  protest  against  the  errors  of  the  Papacy, 
occasioned  likewise,  in  1571,  the  withdrawal  from  the  Article  on 
Baptism  of  that  specific  protest  against  the  '  opus  operatum  '  so 
wisely  inserted  in  the  earlier  Articles  of  1553." 

Nor  was  this  the  only  alteration  in  the  Articles.  "  A  clause  of 
great  clearness  and  precision  of  statement,  which  had  been  intro- 
duced into  the  articles  of  1553,  in  condemnation  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  '  Real,'  nor  of  the  Real  only,  but  of  the  '  Bodily'  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Sacniment,  was  wholly  omitted  from  those  of 
1562.  It  has  never  to  tins  day  been  restored."  It  reads  thun: 
"  I'or  as  much  as  the  truth  of  man's  nature  requireth  that  the 
body  of  one  and  the  self-same  man  cannot  be  atonedme  in  divers 
places,  but  must  needs  be  in  some  one  certain  place,  therefore  the 


*  This  work  of  Fisher,  a  layman  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  the  most 
candid  and  thorough  on  the  subject,  and  should  be  perused  by  every  intelli- 
gent Episcopalian  who  wishes  to  thoroughly  understand  the  matter  under 
consideration. 


l6  ffOJV  THE  BOOK  OF   COMMON  PRAYER 

body  of  Christ  cannot  be  present  at  one  time  in  many  and  diverse 
places.     And  liecause  (as  Holy  Scripture  doth  teach)  Christ  was 
taken  up  into  Heaven,  and  there  shall  continue  until  the  end  of 
the  world,  a  faithful  man  ought  not  either  to  believe  or  openly  to 
confess  the  real  bodily  presence  (as  they  term  it)  of  Christ's  flesh 
and  blood  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  When  we  con- 
template these  radical  changes,  this  reacdon,  this  defonnation  of 
the  work  of  Cranmcr  and  Edward,  are  we  surprised  at  Hallam's 
statement  ?"     Pius  IV.  dispatched  a  Nuncio  to  England  with  an 
invitation  to  .send  amb  issadors  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  with 
power,  as  it  is  .said,  to  confirm  the  English  Liturgy,  and  to  permit 
double  Communion.''     Another  writer  states :  "  When  a  copy  of 
the  Prayer  Book  was  sent  to  the  Pope,  so  well  satisfied  was  he 
with  it,  that  he  offered  through  his  Nuncio  P arpalia,  to  ratify  it  for 
England,  if  the  Queen  would  only  own  the  supremacy  of  Rome." 
Are  we  surprised  to  find  BLshop  Jewel,  the  ablest  divine  of  this 
reign,  writing  thus:  "Now  everything  is  managed  in  so  slow, 
cautious  and  prudent  a  manner,  as  if  the  word  of  God  was  not  to 
be  received  upon  its  own  authority ;  so  that,  as  Christ  was  thrown 
out  by  his  enemies,  he  Is  now  kept  out  by  his  friends." 

Cecil,  Elizabeth's  eminent  Prime  Minister,  remarked  of  the 
Prayer  Book:  "As  for  external  discipline,  I  can  assure  you,  our 
Church  is  more  replenished  with  ecclesiastical  rites  than  was  the 
Primitive  Church  in  five  hundred  years  after  Christ,  in  so  n.uch 
as  the  Church  of  England  is  by  the  Germans,  French,  Scots  and 
others,  that  cut  themselves  Reformed,  thought  to  be  herein 
corrujjted,  for  retaining  so  much  of  the  rites  of  the  Church  of 
Rome. " 

A  writer  already  quoted,  in  an  article  on  "the  Anglican  Refor- 
mation," remarks:  "Our  readers  are  aware  of  the  controversy  as  to 
how  the  celebrated  clause—"  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree 
rites  and  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  matters  of  faith"— crept  into 
the  twentieth  Article  of  the  Church  of  England,  when  it  occurs 
neither  in  the  first  printed  edition  of  the  Articles,  nor  in  the  draft 
of  them  which  were  passed  by  convocation,  and  which  is  still  in 
existence,  with  the  autograph  signature  of  the  members.  It  is 
now  the  universal  belief  that  Elizabeth  inserted  this  clause." 

If  time  would  permit,  I  would  be  glad  to  quote  the  language  of 
the  enlightened  bishops  of  that  day :  Grindal,  Cox,  Jewel,  Home, 
Parkhurst,  and  others,  expressive  of  their  great  dissatisfaction 


pswiWWIi 


HAS  BEEN   UN  PROTESTANTIZED. 


>7 


with  the  work  of  the  Queen,  and  of  their  consent  to  reman  m 
their  places,  only  for  the  reason  that  if  ihey  refused,  their  places 
would  be  filled  with  men  holding  unscriptural  views  I  have  sau 
enough,  however,  to  show  that  the  P.ayer  Book  of  ^  -^^eth  was 
far  from  being  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Reformers-that .  wa  a 
wide  and  dangerous  departure  from  the  views  of  the  martyrs  under 
Edward,  with  whom  Elizabeth  had  little  doctrinal  sympathy. 

When  we  shall  examine  the  two  succeeding  Revisions,  m  which 
the  Book  was  made  to  diverge  still  further  from  J^e  pnnciples  of 
its  first  compilers,  you  will  be  still  more  surprised,  and  will  be 
deeply  grateful  that  you  have  had  grace  and  courag.  g.  ven  you  to 
break  away  from  these  Romish  traditions,  and  to  plant  ourselves 
upon  the  basis  of  the  word  of  God  alone. 

One  marked  reactionary  change  made  by  Ehzabelh,  I  have 
omitted.  In  the  articles  of  Edward,  there  is  a  remarkable  clause : 
«  The  grace  of  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  is  given  through 
the  same,  takes  away  the  heart  of  stone  and  gives  the  heart  of 
flesh."     Here,  grace  conveyed  by  the  Spirit,  the  conv'ers^n  of 
the  soul,  as  distinguished  from  grace  mwrought  by  th  •  bacra- 
nrents,  is  positively  asserted.      This  strong  Protestant  statement, 
so  powerful  an  an'idote  to  the  Sacramental  errors  of  the  Liturgy 
was  expunged  by  this  shrewd  monarch  ;  and  wherefore,  .1  not  still 
further  to  unprotestantize  the  Book,  and  to  render  U  less  distaste- 
ful  to  her  Roman  subjects  ? 

RECAPITULATION. 

Thus  have  we  seen  seven  of  the  steps  in  the  direction  of 
Roman  Catholicism,  the  deliberate  work  of  Ei;..abeth  and  her 
council,  a  majority  of  whom  had  been  councillors  to  the  bigoted 

^"  The  restoration  of  the  Roman  vestments,  the  Alb,  the  Cope, 
and  other  ornaments  expressly  forbidden  in  the  Rubric  of  1552. 

II.  The  restoration  of  the  Roman  Saints'  Days,  with  their  Eves, 
omitted  in  the  first  Prayer  Book. 

III.  The  removal  of  the  petition  in  the  Liturgy  condemnatory 

of  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

IV.  The  omission  of  the   Rubric,  with  respect  to  the   Real 
Presence,  in  the  communion  service.  ,    ,       . 

V.  The  expunging  of  the  article  which  condemned^  the  doc- 


t8 


HOIV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


trine  of  the  "Real  and  Bodily"  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
mem. 

VI.  The  omission  of  the  xxvi.  article,  which  protested  against 
sacramental  grace,  ex  opere  operato. 

VII.  The  removal  of  the  declaration  that  Conversion,  the  new 
spiritual  birth,  is  the  direct  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

VIII.  To  these  may  be  added  the  publication  of  Primers  con- 
taining "  Prayers  for  the  Dead." 

ELIZABETH'S    UNFITNESS    FOR  THE   WORK    OF 

REFORM. 

If  the  views  of  this  distinguished  monarch  had  been  thoroughly 
Protestant  and  scriptural,  her  character  would  have  disqualified 
her  for  the  work  of  ecclesiastical  reform.     Her  utter  unfitness 
for  this  work  is  clear  from  the  accounts  left  us  of  her  habits  of 
life.     Profanity  was  habitual  with  her.     She  is  .said  to  have  ex- 
celled her  lather,  the  bluff  Harry,  in  this  accomplishment.     We 
read  of  the  "startling  oaths  with  which   she  would  shock  her 
meek  bishops  who  would  undertake  to  remonstrate  with  her  with 
respect  to  some  of  her  ungodly  deeds.     Said  her  godson.  Sir 
John  Harrington,  when  speaking  of  her,  within  two  years  of  her 
death  :  "She  swears  much  at  those  that  cause  her  griefs  in  such 
wise,  to  the  no  small  discomfiture  of  all  about  her."     {Nuga 
Antiquce,  i,  319.) 

When  Sir  Christopher  Hatton,  a  favorite  courtier  of  Elizabeth 
had  risen  high  in  favor,  he  coveted  a  slice  of  the  Bishop  of  Ely's 
garden,  which  consisted  of  twenty  acres  on  Ilolborn  Hill  The 
bishop  did  not  want  his  See  to  be  despoiled,  and  resisted  the 
encroachment,  though  backed  by  the  private  orders  of  the  Queen 
This  refusal  drew  the  following  brief  but  pointed  letter  from  her 
maiden  majesty :"  Proud  prelate!  You  know  what  you  were 
before  I  made  you  what  you  are  now.  If  you  do  not  immediately 
comply  with  my  request,  I  will  unfrock  you,  by  C— .     Elizabeth  " 

This  letter  had  the  desired  effect,  (^ueen  Elizabeth  had  the 
violent  temper  of  her  father;  and  when  she  let  it  loo.se,  it  was 
terrible.  She  once  boxed  JCssex's  ears  in  the  Council  chamber- 
she  spat  on  her  courtiers;  collared  her  nobles;  .struck  her  ladies- 
and  often  swore:  "By  God's  death,  all  who  .served  her  were 
truly  knaves ;"  she  stamped  with  her  feet  at  bad  news;  walked 
up  and  down  the  privy  chamber,  and  thrust  her  sword  furiously 


■•^WM^MS 


HAS  BEEN  UN  PROTESTANTIZED, 


«9 


thronrrh  the  tapestry.    "  Sometimes,"  writes  Harrington,  her  god- 
on  ''shlv     more' than  man,  and  often  less  than  woman.' 

rate  power.     She  left  it  among  the  hrst,  .f  not  the  first  of  Euro 

c.  .o.  "     (Knt  Ouar.  Rev  ,  Sept.,  1866,  p.  274. ) 
'"•IL'  rnizabetU  »?!  not  .rkvcl  on  Sunday,  y«t  after  lisien- 

"""TnlwJ^e  «  the  noon-day  divenisements  of  the  ma.den 
:Tc7or^.3idanc-,„.  ,nns.,  catds  and  pa^a^^^^^^^ 
up  the  rear  of  her  Sabbath  amusements.       {StuMarui s  J.tJ  , 

'•  Wha.  we  add  her  cruelty  to  the  Puritans,  herbitter  opposition 
v\  ncn  we  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^       ^^^  of  her 

':re:"::f:i:e  anVr^e  Se.,ice  Boo.  set  forth  by  het 

"' l"  mu,"r'ecc'esiastical  qualifications,  her  treatntent  of 
JeCbisCorindal  is  in  po.nt.  Gtinda,  »as  ^^^^..^^ 
Bacon  "the   greatest  and  gravest  prelate  of  the   land.       "e 

Itrrptturand   intellectual   i,npr„ve,nent.      Elizabeth,  who 

residence  ""^  P  »"7^''  „f  Qrindal  to  her  unrighteous 

:rr  is  o::of  ttnoi  :.  uUerLces  on  record,  and  is  worthy  of 

order  is  "ne  o  t  consciences,  and  smothered  convic 

•""r  ;Lr  reCe:  rUnstrance  .orthy  of  an  apostle  he 

ludes    "If  it  be  your  majesty's  pleasure  for  this  or  any  other 

Tau      .    rem"     me'out  of 'this  place,  I  will  with  all  humtUty 

J  .w  J,;„to  and  render  again  to  your  ma  esty  that  I  received 

;f  th*:r    i  con'der  with  myself  that  it  is  a  fearful  tm„g  to 


90 


//Oiy  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


Zh?lT    '  '"'  ''"'  '"'^'"'"^^^  ^°   *'-  ^'-'-'-  of   an    n- 
iigntened  conscience. 

While  thus  alluding  to  the  moral  delinquencies  of  Elizabeth 
and  her  consequent  unfitness  to  amend  the  Prayer  Book     won M 

quirenen  s.      She  was,   as  one  says,  "In  couraee  eaual  .n 

l?c;ftmcould^a7crar"^  ^^'"''"^'^""  °^'^'-«  '-^^'^ 

Pono'r'f  ''1""T  'i^^'^^^t^'  I  ^hink  history  shows,  that  if  the 
Pope  had  acknowledged  that  her  mother  was  the  lawful  vfe  of 
Henry,  and  that  she  was  the  legitimate  sovereign  of  Eninc  she 
wou  have  accepted  the  Papal  supremacy,  and  Engfand  n  s  dav 
would  have  been  subject  to  Rome.  The  Almighfyappca  s  tohte 
overruled  the  .rcpressible  pride  and  arroganct  o^  e  Tudor^t 
^e  fanherar.ce  of  the  truth  and  the  welfare  of  his  Church  Te 
Pope  refused  to  acknowledge  the   claims  of  Elizabeth,  a^d  she 

EngLT  ^'"''  '""^'  ''  '^^  ""^^^  ^'  ^^^  Chu'ch  of 

REVISION  BY  JAMES  I. 
The  changes  at  the  next  revision, under  James  I.,  in  ,604,  were 
not  nun.erous,  but  still  in  the  same  direction  of  Sacramentananir 
and  m  one  respect  of  immense  importance  ^ananism, 

Coleridge   in  one  of  his  letters,  says :  "  The  faith  that  was  com- 
mon toal    theg,eat  Reformers,  continued  to  be  the  faUho    t^e 
Church   of  England    universally   till  the  appearance  of  a  semi 
Romams-m  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  James  the  First." 

Colendge  should  have  placed  the  date  somewhat  earlier     The 
change  among  the  Clergy  was  marked  in  the  persons  of  Laud  ad 
Andrews  m  the  beginning  of  this  reign.     Prynne  writes :  Mn  Ju  y 
1604    Laud  proceeded    batchelor  in  divinitie.     His  supposi  ion' 
when  he  answered  in  the  divinide  schools  for  his  degrees  con      n" 

Ind   :  :f ""  °'  ^'P'^"^'  ^"  ^^^^"  -^batim  out  'of  B  1  arm  ^ 
and  he  then  :„auHained  there  could  be  no  true  Church  wiS 


tIAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


ai 


diocesan  bishops,  for  which  Dr.  Holland  (then  Doctor  of  the  Chaire 
openly  reprehended  him  in  tho  schooles  for  a  secht.ous  pcrso",  who 
would  unchurch  th  ;  Reformed  Churches  beyond  the  seas  and  sow 
a  division  between  us  and  them  who  were  brethren  by  th.s  novele 
Popish  doctrine."  "  This  novele  I'opish  doctrine  of  th.s  sed.Uous 
person."  has.  unfortunately,  b.come  the  accepted  and  controlhng 
doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  has  been  one  of 
the  chief  causes  which  has  pro.luced  the  sad  state  of  affairs  which 
has  compelled  this  separation  of  brethren,  and  th.s  return  to  the 
principles  of  the  Reformers.  .        «  n.^^jno 

There  was  no  unreasonableness  in  Laud  quotmg   Bellarm  ne. 
the  Rreat  Papal  champion,  in  the  matter  of  Baptism  ;  for  the  doc- 
dne  of  Baptism  in  the  offices  of  the  two  churches  .s  the  same 
This  is  made  clear  by  the  fact  that  when  Slapleton  another  Roman 
in.s      ma  J      ^resented  a  very  carefid  Exposition  otthc 

controversialist,  in  ijOs.prescnieu  a  M^y  wv  \  ,f  Fn„UnH 

points  of  dilTerence  between  his  own  Church  and  that  of  England, 
among  his  twenty-two  points,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the  subject 
of  Baptism.    The  Romish  doctrine  of  Baptism  is  P-ent  m  he 
offices  of  both  books  of  Edward.     It  was  intensified  in  the  book 
ofElzabeth.  and  still  more  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  Revision  o 
Charles  II..  tvs  will  be  hereafter  shown.      It  is  retained  m  the 
p".    Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.     It  was  e  imi- 
n    ed   from   the   Prayer   Book   of    1785.  but  afterwards  restored 
through  the  influence  of  Bishop  Scabury.  who  derived  his  orders 
and  principles  from  the  Laudcan  nonjurors. 

Andrew  s,  with  all  his  immense  learning  and  devoutness,  was  a 
Sacerdotalist'in  sentiment.      A  remark  ^^  j;!^'^  ^^^^;:^^  ^ 
1604  shows  the  tendency  of  his  views.     The  so-called  1  nest  o 
he  CI S    of  England  pronounces  the  absolution  "standing. 
Bishop  AndrewesLd  that  posture  was  proper,  because  he  exe- 
cutes this  office  "  authoritatively."      Here  is  expressed  the  clear 
sacerdotal  idea,  which  has  wrought  such  mischief  among  us^^ 

At  the  revision  of  1604,  the  term  «'  Remission  of  Sms  was 
intfoduced  after  the  word  "Absolution,"  to  render  the  service 
Ire  emphatically  sacerdotal.  The  mischief  done  at  this  revision 
•  was  with  the  Catechism,  in  some  respects  the  most  important  por- 
don  o  the  whole  book;  because  the  part  brought  into  especa 
crntact  with  the  minds  of  the  children  of  the  Church  The 
p'^es  ant  portion  of  the  Prayer  Book  is  especially  the  Articles. 
wWch  Elizabeth  only  allowed  to  be  published  after  she  had,  upon 


mM&'j£. 


aa 


■WW  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


her  excommunication   broken  with  ^u     d 

<ureher  object  in  conciiiaX MheTo^aL'r  ^"^"  '""''^  ^^'  ^ 

THE  CATECHISM   CHANGED, 
ine  Catecliism  in  the  Book  of  rnmm^n    n 

T..IS  work,  the  latest  issuing  from  the  reform"';  ^^  '^5^- 
as  the  clearest  statement  o^  the"  vi  vvs  whi'  '  '  '''^"'''^ 
Dr.  Randolph  says  of  if  '<  Tf  1         I?  u    .        "'^  ""^  P^^^^^s. 

Edward  VI.  andC  e"las  l:  :  of"t  '  R  r '"  ^'^  ""^  °'  ^'"^ 
whence,"  he  further  al   •  i   1    !  A  ^^^^^^''^  '"  ^^^^t  reign; 

-e  of,     Church  of  England":  tt::;;^^^^^^^^^ 

it   IS   beyond    all   doubt."  says  Fisher    n    ,^rt    .mi 
Renume  historical  me„,orial  which'he  co  n  'r/can t  s  W  to  n"' 
sess  not  excepting  even  the  forty-two  Articles  of  Cr.nm        r  u""' 
cardinal   truths  of  ihp   R.f         "'"'^"'^^'esot  Cranmer,  of  those 

men  and   ProLt-  n  s   .e  ,  "  "^"''  '^  ''"^''^^   Church- 

i  he  Catechism  of  the  Reformers   n„t  ^r      . 
allows  to  this  subject  o^^wZeTZ  '"^'>'-^^^^""  l""«tions, 

Nowell,  who  outlived' the  r:srdie?in:6t"^'°"  '''"'''■    ^^^" 
prep^  cT  ^r""'  '  "■"'''  '^'^'^^^'^  andSacrrmentarian  divine 
tatechism.      These  were  confined  to  the  matter  of  the  sacra! 


HAS  BEEN  U N  PROTECT  AN  Tt ZED.  83 

ments.  which  are  treated  with  far  more  minuteness  than  the 
Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  or  the  Ten  Commandments ;  am  the 
l;ference  is  natural  from  the  perusal  of  this  document,  that  the 
Church  regards  this  subject  as  the  most  important  to  be  brought 
before  the  minds  of  youth. 

The  supremacy  of  Holy  Scripture  is  not  even  alluded  to. 
Faith  and  repentance  are  mentioned  as  they  arc  related  to  Hapt.sm, 
but  not  explained.  A  distinguished  author  ( "entham  remarks 
that  with  the  exception  of  the  one  "  allus.on  '  to  the  len  on^- 
mandments.  there  is  "not  a  syllable  by  whuh  .n  any  muKl  to 
which  the  matter  was  not  made  known  from  oU.or  sources  so 
much  as  a  suspicion  could  be  produced,  that  any  such  book  as 
the  Bible  had  ever  been  written." 

Elizabeth   ignored   the  Catechism  of  Isdward.      So  al  o  did 
Tames      This  document  is  intensely  Biblical  and  Protestant.     So 
Lch"so,that  it  is  the  only  document  of  Edward  and  Cramner 
which  was  publicly  stigmatized  by  Mary  as  worthy  of  reprobaUon 
It  was  styled  by  her  in  a  public  proclamation,  the     Cattchis- 
mus  Reprobatus ;"  and  this  circumstance  is  a  good  reason  why,  as 
Protestants,  we  should  look  upon  it  with  especial  regard,  ami  we 
should  be  grateful  that  we  have  this  precious  memorial  of  the 
truth  from  that  noble  monarch  and  his  martyred  co-laborers 

Do  you  wonder,  in  view  of  what  has  been  here  presented,  that 
so  many  enlightened  Christians  in  England,  in  these  reigns,  re- 
used to  use  the  Prayer  Book,  and  preferred  to  sutler  (under  the 
opprobrious  epithet  of  "Puritan")  various  penalties  rather  than 
vISate  their  conscience  in  submitting  to  the  arbitrary,  imperious, 

""^S::rl:^)^ed  because  they  adhered  to  tW«.  W 
of  God,  apart  from  traditions,  which  had  corrupted  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  were  the  tru.i  Protestants  of  that  era  ..^^ 
serve    from    all    enlightened    Christian   men   admiration    and 
sympathy.     The  most  learned  scholars  and  eminent  bishops  sym- 
pathized with  these  men.  the  objects  of  the  persecutions  of  Eliza- 
Lhand  Archbishop  Parker;    Hallam,  an  English  Churchma^^ 
writes  in  his  "  Constitutional  History"  :  "  I  conceive  the  Church 
of  England  party,  that  is  the  party  adverse  to  any  ecclesiastical 
Chang!,  to  have  been  the  least  numerous  of  the  three,  (that  is, 
Puritan  Popish,  and  Anglican,)  during  this  reign  still  exceptmg 
as  I  have  said,  the  neutrals  who  commonly  make  a  numerical 


.^■^iia^tmmtm^Km 


24 


fon-  nsBooK-  or  commom  p.ave,,  etc. 


"•>  ='1  hands,  (and  is  o,H  1    '  H"?"'  ''"J"'-     "  «  "E'eed 

Ihe  1  lo„so  of  cL,„™,"""  "■^'"'»  ■'■»'  '"ey  prodominafed  in 

port  in   ,Ke   Qnacns   c;u„;i,    '"^^  j:lri  ^^ ''f"'-' ™p. 

possessed  more  power  ihnn  ,„„  „  '-oicesler,    wIiq 

capricious  lempc'  ,he  ,  „,"  !?'„  "';  r'""*"  ""^  -■■"'=™S  "d 
wick,  regarded  as   he  s.ead  es, ,  "■  """'"'K'™  •'•"d  War- 

*e  "SO  and  grave  wTk  r'Xr.Hr"^"'^""'^'""-^' 
ham,  the  experienced  Sirllpr  .  ?  sagacious  Walsine- 

'han  had  been  establil  [\n  ^  ch    7"''"^  '  ^""^  ^°^^'"P 

present  reforn:;;BZ'r  "'  ""''^  — -^truction.  The 
dissipate  the  mists  of  rr^h^cH:-^  "'"  'T'  ""^'^^  ^^^'  ^° 
of  England  and  ,he  Prme  .  F  ^'''''  ?^^'°P^d  ^he  Church 
vance  the  cause  of  purTrSn^^'r"^'''  ,'-''""'^'  ^"^'  '^  -d- 
the  cause  of  the  peop  e  of  f  ?"  "''  '°""^'  '^^^^^^  ^^"'J^-  It  is 
priesthood,  a  repL L'  P^i  cop7e"vvhr'"'  '^  r'''^^"^'""^"' 
word  of  God  by  their  Traditions  "'  '"'"^'"^   ™''^^  '^^ 

We  have  shown  how  for  the  work  nf  vv    u    u 
from   the  principles  of  Fdwld    r  '*'' ^"' "  ^''^■J^'''^^"'-^ 

how  the  progress  of    he llr     '  S""''^^"- '-^^^  ^heir  associates ; 

or  reaction   consun::lated'ut;::"h:r  T'^  k"^1'  '^"^'  ^'^^  ^^^ 
Successor.  "^'  ^^"^  ^'^^k  and  pusillanimous 

than  thatof  Elizabeth  En  K  u'^T""''  °'  '^^  ^''•^^'-^^  ^^^ok 
to  God  that  you  h  V  beet,"",  '''"  "'^'''  ^°  "^''^-''^  fe-^titude 
tive  movement  to  return  toT'""'  'V^'*^ '""  '"  the  first  effec- 
to  organ,,  a  Churcif^d  ^  riTt"^  I^'TT'  '"' 
meet  with  the  full  annmK.f  r  ,  ^  °°'^  ^'^'^'^  would 
were  „„„  hvin.^arf l'  :V?r,:„;;--''  -7;""'' 
D.v.ne  Head  of  ,he  ChurC,  ,„e  hZZt^:^':!:^  '°  '"= 


LECTUEE   TI. 


THE  FINAL  REVISION  OF  THE   COMMON    PRAYER 
BOOK  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  IN 
THE  REIGN  OF  CHARLES  IL  1662. 


OUR  subject  this  evening  is  the  progress  of  the  Revision  of 
the  Praver  Book  after  the  Conference  at  Hampton  Court 
in  the  reign  of  James  1.,  1604. 

We  have  seen  how  widely  Elizabeth  in  her  Revision  of  15  59  had 
departed  from  the  principles  of  Edward  and  tlranmer.  Seven 
steps  at  leass  of  a  retrograd  :  character  toward  Rome,  were  taken 
by  tills  worldly   monarch,  to   conciliate   her   Roman  Catholic 

subjects.  -  . 

I  will  refresh  your  memory  by  lepeatmg  the  ca'alogue  of  im- 
po  tant  changes  made  by  Elizabeth.     (See  p.  17.  Ice.  I.) 

We  have  seen  that  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  the  Sacramentanan 
principle  of  the  book  was  intensified  by  additions  to  the  Ct\.^Q- 
ch\sm—iwo-t/iirds  of  the  questions  being  devoted  to  th<'  subject 
of  the  Sacraments,  while  in  Edv^ird's  lat.r  Catechism,  die  pro- 
portion was  but  one-riM.  In  other  words,  the  later  Bo..,k,  as  we 
now  have  it,  makes  the  Sacramental  question  six  tunes  moreim- 
portant  than  the  Prayer  Book  of  Cranmer. 

We  know  that  the  Prayer  Book  thus  tampered  with,  to  satisfy 
the  Romanists,  was  enforced  by  legal  penalties  on  all  English- 
men •  we  know  that  many  Englishmen,  for  conscience  sake, 
refused  to  sanction  by  their  presence  at  the  services  these  un- 
scriptural  changes;  we  know  that  these  men  were  grievously 
persecuted;  we  know  thoy  were  called  "  J^urtiuns,'  an  epithet  of 
reproach  then  and  now,  with  some  Episcopalians,  but  with  the 


26 


flow  THE  BOOK  OF  COMAfON  PRAYER 


vast  majority  of  Protestants  now  the  term  is  one  of  honor,  and  it  is 
fel'  that  the  world  owes  a  deep  debt  of  gratitude  to  those  moral 
heroes  who  were  willing  to  suffer  for  their  devotion  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  tlie  Word  of  God. 

Some  of  you  who  are  now  stigmatized  as  Schismatics  by  those 
who  have  succeeded  to  the  views  of  Elizabeth  and  Parker,  be- 
cause you  have  embraced  the  views  of  the  martyred  Reformers 
can  in  some  respects  sympathize  with  the  Puritans  in  the  reigns 
of  Elizabetl.  and  the  Stuarts. 

When  James,  who  had  been  a  Presbyterian  in  Scotland,  as. 
cended  the  throne,  the  Reforming  party,  who  included  the  more 
thuroughly  Christianized  part  of  the  nation,  petitioned  for  several 
important  ecclesiastical  changes  in  the  direction  of  the  early 
Reformers.  At  a  meeting  held  for  the  purpose  of  conference, 
in  1604,  called  the  Hampton  Court  Conference,  James  refused 
their  requests,  save  in  one  particular,  viz.,  that  none  but  a 
lawful  minister  should  administer  Baptism.  At  this  meeting 
a  request  was  made  by  the  most  prominent  petitioner,  the 
famous  Dr.  John  Rainolds,  IVofessor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford- 
regarded  as  the  most  learned  man  in  the  nation — that  a  new  and 
amended  version  of  the  Bible  in  English  should  be  prepared. 
The  King  assented,  and  to  the  Puritans  we  owe  our  present  stand- 
ard version,  called  that  of  King  James. 

THE  ACCESSION  OF  CHARLES  I. 
James  died,  and  his  son,  Charles  the  First,  succeeded  him. 
Laud  became  Arciibishop  of  Canterbury.  The  wife  of  Charles, 
the  daughter  of  Henry  of  l-'rance,  was  a  zealous  Romanist— Laud 
was  a  Sacerdotalist  and  Sacramentarian  of  an  extreme  type.  He 
endeavored  to  introduce  a  semi-Romish  Ritual  into  the  English 
Church.  At  the  same  time,  Charles  began  a  series  of  oppressive 
acts,  which  were  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
British  Constitution.  Together  they  endeavored  to  enforce  the 
infamous  "  Book  of  Sports,''  which  enjoined  for  the  afternoon  of 
the  Lord's  Day  games  of  various  kinds,  dancing  and  general 
hilarity.  (See  Appendix  A.)  'I'he  plainest  principles  of  religious 
liberty  were  violated.  Good  and  honest  men  like  Prynne  and 
Bastwick  and  Leighton,  were  imprisoned,  pilloried,  and  their 
noses  slit,  because  their  views  of  the  Scripture,  and  manner  ot 
worship,  differed  from  those  of  the  Primate.     '1'h.jy  acted  accord- 


HAS  BEEN  UN  PROTESTANTIZED. 


^^ 


the 


ing  to  the  dictates  of  an  enlightened  conscience.  Englishmen 
could  not  endure  this  state  of  affairs  with  patience.  Dr.  Vaughan 
remarks  :  "  That  Church  would  be  a  superstitious  and  intolerant 
one,  and  she  paid  the  penalty ;  that  King  would  be  a  t}  rannical 
King,  and  would  deal  treacherously  with  his  subjects  to  the  last, 
and  the  natural  consequences  followed." 

The  civil  war  ensued,  brought  on  by  Charles  and  Laud,  and 
they  paid  the  penalty  of  embroiling  the  nation  in  fratricidal  strife 
with  their  lives.  The  clergy  who  had  given  aid  and  comfort  to 
the  Royalists,  suffered  with  their  friends.  They  were  ejected 
from  their  livings,  but  were  allowed  one-fifth  of  their  stipend  for 
their  support. 

We  cannot  justify  this  wholesale  sequestration  of  the  clergy;  but 
the  persecution  that  the  Puritans  had  undergone  for  over  eighty 
years  from  the  Crown  and  Bishops,  had  taught  them  a  lesson  which 
they  were  not  slow  to  learn.  The  blame  must  largely  rest  on 
their  instructors.  "Curses,  like  chickens,  come  home  to  roost." 
For  these  acts  of  retaliation,  however,  the  Puritans  suffered  in 

their  turn. 

The  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  were  understood 
but  by  few  in  that  age.  Puritanism,  when  allied  with  the  civil 
power,  became  oppressive  and  exacting.  Cromwell,  the  greatest 
English  ruler  of  that  century,  with  an  enlighiened  fnrcs^ght,  en- 
deavored to  check  and  allay  these  tendencies.  He  urged  forbear- 
ance, telling  the  parties  that  if  they  disregarded  his  advice,  "  You 
will  be  thrust  to  the  wall.  Charles  Stuart  will  come  back,  and 
you  will  be  all  left  to  feed  upon  your  liitle  crotchets  as  best  you 
may,  and  very  sorry  provender  you  will  find  it,  I  warrant  you." 

THE  RESTORATION. 

You  are  aware  of  the  sequel.  The  nation  wearied  with  agita- 
tion, sought  rest  in  the  return  of  the  monarch.  The  unanimity 
with  which  he  was  welcomed  was  largely  owing  to  the  declaration 
he  made  at  Breda,  in  which  he  promised  to  grant  "  liberty  to 
•tender  consciences,"  and  pledged  his  royal  word  that  no  mnn 
should  be  «  disquieted  or  called  in  question  for  differences  ol 
opinion  in  religious  matters."     (See  Appendix  B.) 

After  the  King's  return,  conferences  were  held  by  the  two  an- 
tagonistic parties,  with  rcf(  rence  to  the  Church  qu;  stion.  The  Pu- 
ritans trusted  that  an  accommodating  spirit  would  b.;  manilested 


wjwi^»iww*iii  Hrtwfi  'i  Hi>^iMf''»i!.iiWla'^^'t3ateflaKfias3-s 


28 


HO IV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


by  the  Episcopal  party,  and  their  differences  satisfactorily  settled 
upon  the  principles  similar  to  those  proposed  by  Archbishop 
Usher  the  most  learned  man  of  the  age,  a  few  years  previous. 
Ihe  difficulties  might  have  been  happily  arranged  but  for  the 
constitutional  habit  of  lying,  characteristic  of  the  Stuarts.* 

But^  there  was  no  thought  of  concession  with  respect  to  Puritan 
consciences  in  the  minds  of  Charles  and  his  advisers  Their 
ma:n  object  appears  to  have  been  to  change  the  Prayer  Book 
an<l  Kccles.astical  laws  to  fully  accord  with  their  S,iccrd..tpl  and 
Sacramentarian  views,  and  to  secure  the  rich  livings  held  by  the 
Puritan  clergy.  This  I  shall  show  by  testimony  presented  by 
Episcopal  writers. 

Fisher  remarks,  p.  281:  "It  was  a  domineering  erclcsiastical 
party,  whose  scholastic  and  Romanizing  predilections  were  noto- 
nous,  whose  writings  afford  little  or  no  indications  of  an  cxperi 
mental  acquaintance  w  th  the  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel,  but  who 
were,  nevertheless,  permitted,  under  the  auspices  of  a  reckless  and 
unprincipled  government,  to  tamper  with  the  very  choicest  work 
of  their  martyred  predecessors,  and  to  leave  the  impress  of  their 
now  barren  systems  upon  that  precious  heritage  of  truth— pre 
cious  notwithstanding  certain  manifest  defects-which  those  holv 
men  had  left  us."  '' 

THE  CHARACTER  OF  THl-  COMMISSIONERS. 
Who  were  the  men  who  were  prominent  in  this  final  revision  of 
the  English  Prayer  Book  in  1662  ?  Bishop  Sheldon,  afterwards 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  the  moving  sf.irit.  What  do  we 
know  of  this  successor  to  the  seat  of  Cranmer,  this  chief  engineer 
of  the  last  revision  ^ 

Calamy,  to  whom  Charles  offered  the  Bishopric  of  Hereford  in 
his  work  on  the  «  Life  and  Times  of  Baxter,"  the  Puritan  whom 
Charles  also  wished  to  accept  an  Episcopate,  records  as  a  positive 
fact,  that  when  the  Lord  Chamberlain  Manchester  fold  the  Kins 
while  the  Act  of  L^iiformity  was  under  debate,  that  "  he  was 
afraid  that  the  terms  of  it  wre  so  rigid  that  many  of  the  ministers 
would  not  comply  with  it,"  Bishop  Sheldon  replied  "I  am 
afraid  they  will."  «  Nay,"  so  the  narrative  proceeds,  "''tis  cred- 
ibly reported,  he  should  say,  '  now  we  know  their  minds,  we'll  m  ike 


'Stephens'  Notes,  p.  162,  3,  4.     See  A]  pen.l  x  C. 


HAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


29 


them  all  knaves  if  they  conform.' "     When,  after  the  Act  came 
into  effect,  Dr.  Allen  said,  "It  is  a  pity  the  door  is  so   strait." 
Sheldon  remarked,  "  No  pity  at  all.     If  we  had  thought  so  many 
of  them  would  have  conformed,  we  wouid  have  made  it  straiten" 
Fisher  remarks,  p.  483 :  "  With  regard  to  Sheldon  himself,  the 
above  anecdotes  are  merely  illustrations.     But  they  are  strikingly 
confirmed  by  the  information  which  has  come  down  to  us  from 
the  most  authentic  sources.     His  character  is  indeed  well  known, 
and  Burnet  says  of  him  expressly,  that '  he  seemed  not  to  have 
a  deep  sense  of  religion,  if  any  at  all,  and  spoke  of  it  commonly 
as  an  engine  of  government,  and  as  a  matter  of  policy.'"     "  Be- 
sides Bishop  Sheldon,"  Fisher  continues,  "  the  divines  to  whom 
we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  the  Prayer  Book  in  its  present  form, 
w:re  Gunning  and  Morley.    Of  the  former  it  is  said  by  Calamy, 
that  he  stuck  at  nothing."     (Baxter's  Life  and  Times,  i.  p.  274.) 
And  by  Burnet,  "  that  he  was  much  set  on  reconciling  us  with 
Popery  in  some  points. "     As  to  Morley,  it  is  said  of  him  distinctly 
by  the  above-mentioned  writers,  "that  he  was  extremely  passion- 
ate, very  obstinate,  and  unwilling  to  yield  to  anything  that  might 
look  like  moderation." 

These  were  the  three  Chief  engineers,  the  Controlling  spirits  in 
framing  the  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England  as  it  has  re- 
mained unaltered  for  two  hundred  years.  Can  you  wonder  that 
a  book  proceeding  from  men  so  utterly  unfitted  for  a  work  which 
demanded  deep  piety,  consummate  wisdom,  sagacity,  modera- 
tion, and  comprehensiveness,  should  have  been  a  constant  source 
of  divisi.  ..,  contention  and  strife,  should  have  alienated  half  the 
nation,  and  have  produced  the  present  crop  of  Puseyites,  Ritual- 
ists, Sacerdotalists  and  Sacramentarians  ? 

"  The  whole  proceeding  seems  to  have  been  concluded,"  says 
Isaac  Taylor,  another  learned  churchman,  "  with  the  express 
object  of  preventing  any  extensive  conformity  taking  place." 
According  to  Burnet,  "  Care  was  taken  that  nothing  should  be 
altered,  as  it  had  been  moved  by  the  Presbyterians,  for  it  was  re- 
solved to  gratify  them  in  nothing." 

Archdeacon  Hare,  one  of  the  noblest  Churchmen  of  this  gene- 
ration, says :  "  All  hope  of  union  was  blasted  by  that  second 
most  dis^astrous,  most  tyrannical,  most  schismatical  Act  of  Uni- 
formity, the  authors  of  which,  it  is  plain,  were  not  seeking  unity, 
but  division."    For  in  the  words  of  Isaac  Taylor,  "While  the 


.\Saa.r  .  .»»<' 


30 


now  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


irony  hey  „^^e     tt^V""'  "'"""  =""«  W-Phcmo.s 
ih„  .^-  il-      ,  ™e  Litany  a  petition  for  deliverance  from 

rOT   the  so-sy  ed    "schism"   of  thn  M  r        • 

Wesley,,  of  the',.>ee  Chth  o/e*;!  'a^'^^rS  °'  ""t 

ri;:;;™Li\'''rr"'.''\'^='= -^'-^-^="  *•" '^ 

r  h      f  ''  "■''"'■  ""=>•  f™"!  »  b=  imposed  bv  law 

on  te  whole  nation,  are  mainly  responsible.     In  'he  word    of 

.'::;  'whr:h"r:are*ri[7:°"H:-^  T'l  ""■""-"'" 

.ives  the  «rs,  Jnst  canse^;^.:!:.  b^^ X-^^^'Lr 
ration  upon  a  just  cause  proeeeding."  ^ 

John    Hales,    a   learned   Episcopalian   of  this  age    puts  this 

things  of  doubtful  disputation  liath  been  in  all  ages  the  erounri  nf 
schism  and  separation  ;  and  he  that  scparates'fom  fuspecled 
op.n.,ns  IS  not  the  .separatist."    Chillingworth  also,  in  hi"  mmot 
tal  Work,  has  most  logically  elaborated  this  princi;ie 
Having  thus  described  the  leaders  in  this  work  of  the  final  Revi- 

ZLo   vrrr""'^"''^'  ^'^^"°^^^  ^h^y  '"'-^dein  the  Prayer 
Book  of  Khzabeth  and  James.  ^f'lyer 

CHANGKS  IN  THE  OFFICES  FOR  BAPTISM 
First    What  did  they  do  with  the  Offices  for  Baptism  .> '  They 
restored  the  words  <' sanctify  this  water  to  the  mystical  washW 
away  of  sin;"  words  which,  while  in  the  original  service  book ^ 
IS49.  were  carefully  excluded  from  that  of  1553.     In  their  present 
connection  the  words  became  a  prayer  of'Lnsec^atioTSr 
spcct  to  the  element  of  water.   <'  Here  we  have,"  says  Fisher  "  the 
very  basis  of  the. /«..^...,«,«._a  remnant,  too,  L  the  old  tene 
of  7nznsck,ncuM>on,  already  repeatedly  noticed,  and  which  on 
borP^        "M""  '"""^^  ^°  ''"  ^"^'"'^  °^  Transubstantial" 

l::  ii::;  rfi^vr^^ '"''-  -'  -  --^  ^---^  -  -p-^^  .om 

Jncob,  ^ jnjii^adnui^  Uc^  r^^j^j^^^  p^ 

the  hand,  of  every  intelligent  giscol^^rayman       "'^''^''  '"'  ^''°""^  ''^  '^ 


"■^^'WaihJiKi.-.t 


HAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


31 


15,  says:  "  The  consecration  prayer  was  omitted,  on  the  ground, 
as  we  learn  from  the  Scripta  Anglkana  of  Bucer,  that  it  implied  a 
recognition    of  the  superstitious,    un<^criptural,   and    essentially 
Pagan   notion  of  a  magical  transmutation  {magicas  rcrum  miita- 
tiones)  of  the  material  element  employed  in  this  sacrament.      Yet 
this  prayer,  as  it  stands  now  in  our  Prayer  Book,  is  worse  than  the 
one  which  appeared  in  Edward  VI.  first  book.      That  prayer 
had,  indeed,  the  words,  "  who  hath  ordained  the  element  of  water 
for  the  regeneration  of  thy  faithful  people,"  but  this  expression 
rendered  less  objectionable  by  the  addition  of  "  the  faithful  peo- 
ple," is  still  further  qualified  by  the  concluding  words,  "that  by 
the  power  of  thy  word  all  those  who  shall  be  baptized  therein 
may   be  spiritually  regenerated;"  while  the  prayer  now  in  our 
I.iturgy  says,  without  any  qualifications:  "Sanctify  this  water  to 
the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin  ;"  thereby  leading  us  back  to 
the  gross  superstition  attached  to  Baptism  in  the  fourth  and  fol- 
lowing centuries,  when  prayer  was  made  to  God  to  sanctify  the 
7vater,  and  to  give  it  grace  and  power,  &c.;  and  when,  by  a  number 
of  ceremonies,  men  were  taught  that  the  water  was  transclemated 
and  ob;ained  an  inherent  power  to  wash  away  sin." 

By  this  act  the  Commissioners  of  1662  plainly  manifested 
their  sympathy  with  medieval  doctrine,  and  here  was  a  marked 
step  in  the  direction  of  Rome. 

It  iias  been  argued  of  late  by  those  who  have  desired  to  recon- 
cile the  Prayer  Book  witli  the  Bible,  that  the  Reformers  made 
their  assertion  of  spiritual  regeneration  in  connection  witli  baptism 
on  the  ground  of  the  answers  of  the  sponsors,  and  on  the  fahh  of 
those  wlio  thus  presented  the  infant.  But  to  decide  the  question 
that  that  was  not  the  doctrine  of  '.he  Prayer  Book,  the  Commis- 
sioners of  Charles  (in  contradistinction  to  the  action  of  the  Refor- 
mers) made  the  positive  declaration  witti  regard  to  the  spiritual 
regeneration  of  the  child  by  Baptism,  in  the  office  of  P.ivate 
Baptism,  where  no  sponsorial  answers  are  required,  but  when 
this  emphatic  assertion  irnn  ediately  follows  the  simple  act  of 
administering  the  rite. 

"  When,  therefore,"  says  Fisher,  "the  Church  has  come  in  this 
way  to  annex,  as  a  necessary  adjunct  to  the  performance  of 
Infant  Baptism,  so  positive  a  declaration  of  its  regenerative 
efficacy,  she  has,  we  submit,  pronounced  most  unmistakeably  her 
own  doctrine  upon  the  subject,  and  excluded  every  artifice  by 


, 


$9 


HOW  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


which  the  real  meaning  of  her  Baptismal  offices  might  be 
honestly  evaded. "  Here  we  have  a  second  clear,  reactionary  step 
towards  Rome.  '^ 

Again,  a  Rubric  was  added  to  the  office  for  Infant  Baptism,  in 
these  words:  "  It  is  certain,  by  God's  word,  that  children  ^vhich 
are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubt- 
edly saved."  Here  Baptism  is  made,  undeniably,  the  ground  of 
the  salvation  of  inf^ints. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  Church  has  not  pronounced  upon  the 
condition  of  children  unbaptized,  and  therefore  does  not  deny 
the  >..,/,///,,  of  their  salvation,  why,  then,  did  the  revisers  of 
1662  append  this  Rubric  to  the-  Burial  Service  ?     "  Here  it  is  to 
be  noted,  that  the  office  ensuing  is  not  to  be  used  for  any  that 
die  unbaptized,  or  excommunicated,  or  have  laid  violent  hands 
upon  themselves."   If  these  unbaptized  infants  are  fit  for  heaven 
why  are  the  words  of  the  English  Burial  Service  too  sacred  to  be 
used  over  their  remains  ?     We  thank  God  that  the  little  ones  fall 
into  different  hands,  in  the  next  world,  from  the  men  who  pre- 
pared  this  so  much  lauded  Book  of  Common  Prayer.     Are  we 
surprised  that  Baxter,  who  was  thought  worthy  of  a  bishopric 
declared :  "  of  the   forty  sinful   terms  of  communion  with  the 
Church   party,   if  thirty-nine   were   taken   away,  and  only  that 
Rubric,  respecting  the  salvation  of  infants  dying  shortly  after 
their  baptism,  were  continued,  yet  they  (/.  e.  he  and  his  col- 
leagues) could  not  conform." 

Here,  then,  we  have  number  ihne  of  the  changes  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Rome. 

'J'he  ['uritans  had  desired  that  parents  mi-ht  be  allowed  to  pre- 
sent their  own  children  at  the  font,  and  to  dispense  with  the 
intervention  of  other  sponsors.  To  render  the  arrangement  im- 
possible, a  Rubric  was  added  for  the  first  time,  enjoining  three 
god-paients  for  every  child. 


LESSONS  FROM  THE  APOCRYPHA. 

Again,  it  is  well  known  that  the  severance  of  the  Apocrypha 
from  the  Cannon  of  Scripture,  has  always  been,  with  the  partisans 
of  Rome,  a  prominent  topic  of  denunciation  against  the  reformers 
and  their  work. 

The  especial   repugnance  of  the  Puritans  to  the  use  of  the 


MAS  BEEN  UN  PROTESTANTIZED. 


33 


Apocrypha,  was  manifested  by  their  petition  at  the  Hampton 
Court  conference  in  1604. 

"  Down  to  the  present  period,'  says  an  author,  (Anglican 
Reformation,  p.  46, )  "  there  were  comparatively  but  little  of  the 
Apocrypha  used  in  the  Calendar  ;  and  even  that  little,  by  an 
'admonition'  prefixed  to  the  second  book  of  Homilies,  in  1564, 
the  officiating  clerg\'man  was  not  only  authorized  to  omit  and 
Substitute  in  its  place  some  more  suitable  portion  of  Canonical 
Scripture,  but  he  was  recommended  to  do  so.  The  Convocation 
of  i66r,  however,  and  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  based  upon  their 
proceedings,  not  only  introduced  other  portions  of  the  Apocrypha 
with  the  daily  Lessons,  but  rendered  it  imperative  upon  every 
clergyman  to  read  them.''  "The  reinsertion,"  says  Fisher, 
"  upon  this  occasion,  of  the  book  of  '  Bel  and  the  Dragon,'  in  the 
Calendar  of  Lessons,  was  intended  as  a  special  indignity  upon 
Baxter  and  his  collengues." 

Here  is  step  number  >«r  toward  Rome,  and  proof  conclusive 
of  the  schismatical  intentions  of  these  men,  as  well  as  the  absence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  from  their  proceedings. 

Again,  Hallam  remarks:  "The  Puritans  having  always  ob- 
jected to  the  number  of  Saints'  Days,  the  bishops  ordered  a  few 
more,  more  than  sixty  of  the  mythical  and  semi-historical  heroes 
of  monkish  legends."  And,  adds  Isaac  Taylor,  "  for  the  chari- 
table purpose  of  annoying  those  who  objected  to  all  commemora- 
tions of  the  kind,  the  names  of  2.  few  Popes  were  included  in  the 

list." 

Cranmer  had  allowed,  besides  Scriptural  worthies,  only  three 
names  to  be  commemorated,  those  of  St.  Michael,  St.  Lawrence, 
and  St.  George. 

Here  is  the  /////  evidence  of  the  Romish  proclivities  of  these 
remarkable  Commissioners. 

The  open,  scandalous  viciousness  of  the  character  of  Charles 
H.  was  most  offensive  to  the  religious  portion  of  the  nation. 
Nangle,  an  Episcopal  clergyman  of  Dublin,  remarks  :  "  The 
thorough  sycophancy  of  Sheldon,  Morley  and  Gunning  is  suffi- 
ciently manifested  in  the  fact,  that  they  introduced  into  our 
Liturgy  the  prayer  for  the  Parliament,  in  which  the  profligate  and 
hypocritical  Papist  who  then  sat  upon  the  throne  of  England,  was 
designated  our  most  religious  and  gracious  King.  We  put  It  to 
the  common  sense  of  our  fellow  Puritans,"  he  continues,  "both  in 


34  ffOlV  THE  BOOK'  OF  COMMON  PR  A  YER 

England  and  Ireland,  to  say,  could  our  Prayer  Book  have  escaped 
from  the  manipulation  of  such  filthy  hands  without  defilement  ? 
Kvery  honest  man  must  answer  the  question  in  the  negative,  and 
a  scrutiny  (,f  the  changes  which  they  actually  made  will  justify 
the  negation."     (Tracts  on  Revision,  p.  13.) 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  each  party,  priestly  and 
royal,  was  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  other-one  wanted  the 
Uvmgs,  the  other  tlie  Clerical  support.  It  is  evident  that  neiiher 
had  much  knowledge  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  or  if  they  pos- 
sessed  It,  It  was  hidden  under  a  bushel.  We  see  no  manifesta- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  the  Master  in  the  proceedings  connected  with 
this  Revision,  or  in  the  general  conduct  of  ecclesiastical  afflurs. 

CHAN(;KS  with  respect  to  the  LORD'S  SUl'PER. 
We  must  simply  allude  to  the  changes  in  the  same  Romish 
direction  in  the  Office  for  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  are  not  very 
noticeable- ;  and  with  one  who  is  not  very  familiar  with  the  Theo- 
logical tenets  of  these  Carolinian  divines,  and  with  the  Romish 
controversy,  they  would  readily  escape  notice.  Elizabeth,  how- 
ever, as  we  have  seen,  had  so  thoroughly  tampered  with  the  work 
of  Edward  and  Cranmer,  as  to  leave  but  little  necessary  to  be 
done  now  111  the  same  direction. 

A  High  Chruch  writer,  Alexander  Knox,  refers  to  the"/Vm. 
dtom'  manner  .11  which  the  changes  were  made  by  these  artful 
ecclesiastics.  He  says:  "The  revisers  seized  the  opportunity 
(contrary  to  what  the  public  was  reckoning  on)  to  make  our 
Ponnuluiies  not  more  Puritanical,  but  more  Catholic  They 
effected  this,  without  doubt,  stealthily;  and,  to  all  appearances 
by  the  minutest  alteration;  but  to  compare  tiic  Communion 
Service,  as  it  now  stands,  especially  its  Rubrics,  with  the  form  in 
which  wo  find  It,  previously  to  that  transr.ction,  will  be  to  discover 
that  without  any  change  of  features  which  would  cause  alarm  a 
new  spirit  was  then  breathed  into  our  Communion  Service."     ' 

^^  Stealthily:-  th;it  is  the  word,  which  expresses  rightly  the  man- 
ner in  whch  the  Ritualists  are  giving  our  Church  now  a  fresh  im- 
petius  toward  Rome-such  as  the  allowed  use  of  lights,  ineense, 
altar  cioths,  colored  vestments,  bowing  to  the  altar,  elevation  of 
the  elements,  the  use  of  Hynms  Ancient  and  Modern,  and  the  in- 
troduction of  Sunday-school  books  defending  those  practises 
and  the  doctrines  on  which  they  rest ;  and  bishops  sanctioning  by 


HAS  nEEN  UN  PROTESTANTIZED. 


if 


their  presence  and  absence  of  rebuke,  all  this  mixture  of  Roman- 
ism and  Paganism.  Aye,  -  stealth,!)- r  according  to  the  pulse  of 
the  people,  a  silent  current  bearing  the  vessel  on  to  the  rapids, 
to  be  at  last  hurled  over  the  ;.recipi(:e  into  the  Roman  gulf  of 
impenetrable  and  irretrievable  darkness.  "Well,"  says  Dr. 
I'usey,  the  head  of  this  movement,  in  his  Kirenicon,  "  the  build- 
ing arises  with-ut  noise  or  hammer.      Never,  I  am  satisfied,  was 

the  work  of  (lod  so  wide  and  deep  as  now because  the 

leaven  which  was  hidden  in  the  meal  has  worked  secretly." 

I  will  briefly  notice  these  stealthy  changes.  1  have  stated  with 
respect  to  the  Rubric  of  .  55  2,  where,  with  reference  to  the  posture 
of  kncelhuj,  it  is  declared,  no  "adoration  is  done,  or  ought  to  be 
done,  either  unto  the  sacramental  brea.l  and  wine  then  bodily 
leceivcd,  or  unto  any  real  or  essential  presence  there  being  of 
(Mirist's  natural  He^h  nnd  blood,"  one  of  Kli/.abeth's  Roman- 
izing steps  was  to  expunge  altogether  this  denial  of  the  "  real 

presence.'  tt    1    • 

What  did  these  shrewd  Sacramentarians  of  Charles  11.  do  in 
this  connection  ?  They  reinstated  the  Rubric  of  Kdward,  but 
changed  it  in  its  most  important  feature,  by  expunging  the  words 
«  real  and  essential,"  and  substituting  the  word  "  corporal  in  its 
stead,  therebv  conveying  the  idea  that  the  Church  believes  in  ih. 
'■■real  ami  ascunal"  piesence  of  Christ  in  the  bre.td  and  vvine. 
but  one  which  is  not  -corporal."  or  "physical,"  or  "  sensible. 
\nd  it  is  on  this  change  in  this  Rubric  that  the  Ritualists  and 
Sacramentarians  have  planted  themselves,  and  the.r  position  can- 
not be  shaken. 

Siys  I)r   i'usey.  "  I  have  explained  the  word  'corporal     by 
«  carnal '  or  '  physical,'  because  the  framers  of  this  Rubric  deliber- 
ately rejected  the  denial   of  the  words  '  real  and  -.ssential,'  which 
stood  in  the  first  Arliclus  under  Edward  VI.,  and  substituted  the 
word  'corporal.'     The  statement  of  the  English  Catechism  that 
the    body  and  blood  of  Christ  '  were  verily  and  indeed  taken 
and  received  in  the  Lord's  Supper,'  taken  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  this  Rubric,  settles  conclusively  what  is  the  doctrine  ot 
.he  Church  of  England  on  this  point."  Dr.  Jacob  remarks,  p.  14, 
«  The  other  Revisior,  at  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.,  after  the 
Savoy  Conference  ( 1660),  restored  the  Rubric  about  the  Kneeling 
of  Communicants,  with  a  significant  alteration,  which  md.caleslhe 
Sacramental  leanings  of  the  lime,  and  made  another  step  m  the 


3«  hOIV  THE  BOOK'  01'  COMMON  PKAYEK 

fwn? rl"°"""''"  '""''■  ^"''  •'  '^  ^°  ''*^  rcmunhcred  that  these 
two  additions,  rcspect.vely  inlroducted  on  these  two  occasions, 
proved  partly  the  ground  of  the  defendant  in  the  notable  Hcnnet 
ca  e,  a,:d  thus  helped  to  legalise  a  new  approach  to  Transubstan- 
tiat  ,.n  and  Ho.t-worsh  p  in  the  Church."  The  ablest  of  the  Ox- 
ford Iract-wr„ers,  Dr.  Newn,an,  says  of  these  Formularies: 
They  were  drawn  up  for  the  j.urpose  of  inciu.ling  Catholics- 

?rleTthL!'"'  '''"  '°'  ''"  *"'^""  '"  "'"'^'^  ''^^'^  -•-" 

altern.11%""  '"T'  '°  ^^'^  ''"^'^'^  ^r^^r^^erM-  and  the  only 
Rev  T  J  ^"y  honest,  sincere  and  enlightened  I'rotestant,  is 
■Ke vision  or  Secession. 

We  have,  therefore,  in  this  Act  a  sixth  Romeward  ^tep 

"WhTr    ^'''"'""'  '''''  '"'"■""'   '"  '^"^  ""^'''^^^  these' words: 
Wherefore,  .t  is  our  (,uty  to  render  most  humble  thanks  to  Al- 
n.ghty  Cod,  our  Heavenl    Father,  fur  that  he  hath  given  hi    Sor^ 
our  Saviour,  Jesus  Chnst,  not  only  to  die  for  us  but  also  to  be' 

bill '  H    Z  r  '' '''  "°'>'  '^"^^'"'^"^  «^  '^'■^  '-ly  -^' 

blood  Here  the  Sacrament,  as  a  means  of  grace,  is  put  on  an 
^..«/.(>^vv.th  the  word  of  (^od,  and  not  .M.  if  „,  /his  :  te- 
ment  appears  not  to  have  suited  -hese  stealthy  Sacramentarians  ■  so 
they  s:ruck  out  all  allusion  to  the  word  of  (]od  in  this  passage  s 
a  means  of  grace,  and  altered  the  statem  nt  to  read  thus:  "but 
ment  '       °"''  '''"''"''  ^°'"'  """'  '"^^""^"^^  *"  '^at  floly  Sacra- 

Wcarenotsurprisedat  the  remark  of  Fisher,  p.  3, , :  «  We  cer 
tamly  hold  that  however  slight  the  appearance,  a  more  objection-" 
able  alteration-or  one  mure  palpably  indicative  of  the  old  med 
i^val  notion  of  .,,mz;«<v/A,/ c  fficacy-has  never  yet  b.en  intm' 
duced  into  the  Prayer  Book  since  its  first  estab.ilhmen    u;      a 

professedly  Protestant  basis j,  ,,„,,„^^,  ^^^J    »  ^ 

repudiation  of  L.-angelical  docrine,  as  emplnuic  and  unequivocal 
a  even  the  rnost  mveteratc  admirer  of  the  eclesiastica?  theory 
of  Laud  him  ell  could  reasonably  be  expected  to  require  "  ^ 

This  alteration  is  the  more  important  as  it  is  in  ,he  form  of  a 
doctrinal  statement-  uttered  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  con 
gregatun  to  jvhom    this  exhortation    is  emphaticallv  addr  ss  d 
1  h,s  marked  depreciation  of  the  word  of  God.  and  undue  exalta  ,on 
of  Sacramental  grace,  is  step  number  seven  Romeward 


--^^^M't 


HAS  BEEN   UNPROTESTANT!/.ED. 


37 


Another  chiinge  was  made  which  seems  to  give  countenance  to 
the  notion  ih  it  "  some  mysterious  virtue,  as  accordinf,'  to  the  Ro- 
man Ca  holic  view,  is  infused  into  the  elements  by  the  I'ricstiy 
act  of  Consecration. 

We  find  a  Rubric  in  the  older  Books  which  reads  thus  :  "And  if 
any  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  remain,  the  curate  shall 
have  it  for  his  own  use." 

To  make  this  Rubric  consistent  with  the  sacramental  teachings 
of  other  portions,  it  was  thus  altered:  "And  if  any  of  the  bread 
and  wine  remain  ur.consecrated,  tiie  curate  shall  have  it  for  his  own 
use;  but  if  any  reii.ain  of  that  which  was  consecrated,  it  shall  not 
be  carried  out  of  the  church,  but  the  Priest,  and  such  other  of  the 
Communicants  as  he  shall  then  call  unto  him,  shall,  immediately 
after  the  blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  of  the  same." 

Before  proceeding  to  the  last  point,  which  is  the  change  which 
of  all  others  may  be  regarded  as  the  most  important — that  which 
respects  the  ministry — let  me  present  the  language  of  the  Bishops, 
with  respect  to  the  changee  -.vhifh  they  effected — these,  according 
to  Dr.  'I'enniso  i,  amounting  to  about  600  in  number. 

CONCESSION  OF  THE  BISHOPS. 

With  regard  to  the  charge  of  their  op])onents,  that  the  Liturgy 
was  the  result  of  a  compromise  tvilh  ltom\  they  honestly  acknowl- 
edge what  was  asserted  in  my  former  lecture  :  "  It  was  the  wisdom 
of  our  Reformers  to  draw  up  such  a  Liturgy  as  neither  Romanist 
nor  Protestant  could  justly  except  against." 

This  statement  is  utterly  fiilse  with  respect  to  the  original  Re- 
formers under  Edward.  It  is  perfectly  true  as  regards  Elizabeth, 
as  has  been  demonstrated. 

The  Revisers  of  1662,  adopting  the  policy  of  Elizabeth,  made 
so  much  progress  in  that  direction  that  no  thoroughly,  intelligent 
Protestant,  I  deliberately  affirm.can  consistently,  without  mental  res- 
ervation, use  the  IJook  of  the  Reformers,  as  it  came  marred  and 
sadly  defaced  from  the  hands  of  these  unfit  and  unfaithful  men. 

Jacob  soundly  remarks,  p.  23  :  "  What  must  be  the  case  with  our 
congregations  in  the  use  of  these  words,  as  they  always  must  be 
used,  without  anything  to  qualify  them,  or  to  interfere  with  their 
natural  signification ;  and  what  the  effect  upon  any  thoughtful 
man,  when  he  hears  his  Pastor  deny  in  his  pulpit  what  he  affirms 
at  the  font?  " 


38  HOW  THE   BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 

By  forced  and  unnatural  explanations,  men  thus  satisfy  each  one 
his  own  conscience;  but  ihey  do  not  convince  others  who  are  not 
exactly  included  within  the  same  circle  as  themselves.  And,  surely, 
It  IS  no  light  matter  il  we  give  occasion  to  others  to  speak  reproach- 
fully, or  to  doubt  our  straightforwardness  or  honesty  in  such  mat- 
ters.    No  greater  injury  can  be  done  to  the  cause  of  true  religion 
than  when  men  are  led  lo  surmise  a  want  of  integrity  and  consis- 
tency in  their  religious  teachers.     I  fear  the  Evangelical  Clergy 
have  not  always  sufficiently  considered  or  understood  the  way  in 
vvhich  those  outside  their  own  ranks  regard  their  conduct  in  such 
things.     I  fear  that  by  having  recourse  to  what  seems,  at  any  rate 
to  others,  to  be  non-natural  interpreations  and  labored  explana- 
tions of  objectionable  words,  instead  of  totally  objecting  to  them 
they  have  placed  themselves,  as  a  body,  in  a  false  position  and 
have  weakened  their  influence  for  good." 

TRADITION  ENDORSED. 
With  respect  to  the  objection  offered  that  the  Book  of  Common 
Trayer  unduly  elevates  the  office  of  Tradition,  what  do  these  liish 
ops  of  1662  affirm?     "The  r^hurch  hath  been  careful  to  put  noth. 
mg  mto  the  Liturgy  but  that  which  is  either  evidently  the  word  of 
God,  or  that  which  hath  been  generally  received  in  the  Catholic 
Church;  neither  of  which  can  be  called  private  opinion.     If  by 
orthodox  be  meant  those  who  adhere  to  Scripture  and  the  Catho- 
lic Consent  of  Antiquity,  we  do  not  know  that  any  part  of  our 
Liturgy  hath  been  questioned  by  such. "     Here  we  see  that  Cath- 
olic Consent  of  Antiquity  is  placed  on  the  same  level  with  Holy 
Scripture,  as  a  standard  of  doctrine. 

BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  ASSERTED. 
It  has  been  common  to  say  that  the  Prayer  Book  does  not  teach 
that  Regeneration  is  coincident  with  Baptism,  and  we  have  had 
no  less  than  seven  methods  invented  by  which  the  Baptismal  Ser- 
vices may  be  reconciled  with  the  word  of  God.  But  let  us  hear 
these  Bishops  of  1662  boldly  affirm  what  the  Baptismal  Offices  aie 
intended  to  teach,  and  what  their  deliberate  language  unmistakably 
means:  "Seeing  that  God's  Sacraments  have  their  effects  when 
the  received  doth  not/^;/^r^  obicem  put  any  bar  against  them,  which 
childt;^n  cannot  do,  we  may  say  in  faith  of  every  child  that  is  bap 
tised,  that  it  is  regenerated  by  God's  Holy  Spirit The 


HAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


39 


eflfect  of  a  child's  Baptism  depends  neither  upon  their  own  present 
actual  faith  and  repentance  (which  the  Catechism  says  expressly 
they  cannot  perform),  nor  upon  the  faith  and  repentance  of  their 
natural  parents  nor  pro-j  arents,  or  of  their  god-fathers  or  god- 
mothers, but  upon  the  ordinance  and  institution  of  Christ 

Baptism  is  our  Spiritual  Regeneration."* 

In  view  of  these  words,  how  utterly  worthless  and  indefensible 
was  the  declaration  signed  in  187 1  by  fifty  American  Bishops,  that 
the  word  "regen  rate"  in  the  Office  for  Baptism  does  not  determine 
a  moral  change  in  the  recipient.  It  was  a  statement  etymologi- 
cally,  historically,  and  doctrinally  erroneous.  It  was  another  ami- 
able but  desperate  and  unsuccessful  attempt  to  reconcile  the  Ro- 
manism and  Protestantism  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer ;  to 
harmonize  truth  and  error;  to  keep  the  image  of  clay  and  brass 
upon  its  feet.  Thank  God,  this  unholy  alliance  has  been  at  last 
broken,  and  that  a  Prayer  Book  in  the  Anglo  Saxon  tongue  has  at 
length  been  framed,  which  makes  the  Word  of  God  supreme,  which 
rejects  the  traditions  of  men,  and  by  which  tho  ,e  who  hold  to  Ro- 
mish error  and  Protestant  truth  cannot  coiijointly  worship  in  sin- 
cerity and  truth. 

CHANGES  IN  THE  ORDINATION  OFFICES. 

We  come  how  to  the  most  important  practical  change  in  the 
Book,  one  which  introduced  a  principle  hitherto  foreign  to  it;  one 
which  has  resulted  most  disastrously  to  the  Church  of  England, 
and  to  the  interests  of  Christianity. 

We  have  seen  that  Cranmer  and  the  Reformers  had  not  suc- 
ceeded in  freeing  the  Prayer  Book  altogether  from  expressions 
of  a  Romish  character  with  respect  to  Baptism.     The  same  re- 
mark may  be  made  with  respect  to  the  office  for  Ordination  to  the 
Ministry.     They  retained  that  form  which  had  first  been  intro-  • 
duced  in  the  middle  ages :  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost;  whose  sins 
thou  dost  forgive,  tliey  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost 
retain  they  are  retained  ;  and  be  thou,"  Ac.     «  This  clause,"  says 
an  Episcopal  writer,  "  was  not  used  during  the  first  thousand 
years  of  the  History  of  the  Church,  when  the  form  consisted  sim- 
ply of  a  prayer  for  the  Holy  Ghost.     Morinus  publishes  sixteen  of 
the  most^ncient  forms  of  Ordination,  in  fifteen  of  which  it  does 


*  Documents  relating  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity    1662,  pp.  167  9. 


40 


HOW  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


not  occur.  It  was  first  found  in  a  book  belonging  to  the  Cathe- 
dral of  Mavence  in  the  thiiteenth  century." 

Bishop  Burnet,  Bingham,  Blunt,  Fisher  and  other  writers  amply 
confirm  this  statement.  Fisher  w  ites:  "Cranmer  did  not  ex- 
punge, as  he  certainly  ought  to  have  done,  the  sace  dotal  element 
from  our  Ritual,  but  persisted  in  retaining  it,  in  spite  both  of 
Scripture  and  Ecclesiastical  usage  of  the  first  ten  centuries,  the 
objectionable  words — objectionable,  that  is,  when  addressed  by 
one  frail  mortal  to  another — '  whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven.'  But  Cranmer  taught,  at  tlie  same  time,  that  '  Bishops 
and  Priests  were  both  the  ofiice  at  the  beginning  of  Christ's  re- 
ligion.' In  the  nineteenth  Article  he  carefully  left  out  all  allusion 
to  any  one  form  of  government  as  essential  to  the  Church,  and  in 
the  Litany  he  made  the  petition  for  the  Clergy  read  :  '  all  Bishops, 
Pastors  and  jMinisters  of  the  Church.'  Moreover,  he  fully  recog- 
nized the  orders  of  Ministers  ordained  according  to  -the  Presbyte- 
rian form."  * 

The  Church  of  England,  down  to  the  year  1662,  recognized  the 
validity  of  orders  received  from  Presbyters,  by  admitting  to  her  liv- 
ing. Ministers  thus  ordained,  simply  requiring  of  them  a  subscrip- 
tion in  conformity  to  the  laws  of  the  land. 

The  modern  dogma,  which  denies  the  validity  of  Pre:.'byterian 
ordinations,  had  been  held  as  a  private  opinion  by  Laud  and  his 
followers;  but  lew  of  the  laity  received  it;  it  was  first  practica  ly 
accepted  by  the  Church  in  1662,  by  the  changes  in  the  Ordinal, 
and  by  the  passage  of  the  infamous  Act  of  Uniformity. 

In  testimony  of  this  statement,  I  quote  the  language  of  the  most 
venerable  of  the  Commissioners  of  1662,  Bishop  Cosin :  "If  at 
any  time  a  Minister  so  ordained,  in  these  French  Churches,  came 
to  incorporate  himself  in  ours,  and  to  receive  a  public  charge,  or 
cure  of  souls,  among  us  in  the  Church  of  England,  (as  I  have 
known  some  of  them  to  have  done  of  late,  and  can  instance  in 
many  others  before  my  time,)  our  Bishops  did  not  reordain  him 
before  they  admitted  him  to  his  charge,  as  they  must  have  done  if 
his  former  ordination  in  France  had  been  void ;  nor  did  our 
laws  require  more  of  him  than  to  declare  his  public  consent  to  the 


*  See  Appendix  to  Bishop  Cuniiiiins'  Sermon,  "Primitive  Episcopacy." 
This  fact,  together  with  the  views  ol  tlic  early  Ref(jrnicrs,  are  very  clearly  and 
satisfactorily  presented  in  Bishop  Cummins'  sermon  at  the  consecration  of 
Bishop  Cheney.  A  list  of  modern  standard  Episcopal  writers  who  maintain 
the  same  opinion  will  -■  found  in  Appendix  11. 


'ER 

1  the  Cathe- 

riters  amply 

did  not  ex- 

otal  element 

lite   both  of 

enturies,  the 

(Jdressed  by 

;ive,  they  are 

at  '  Bishops 

Christ's  re- 

t  all  allusion 

urch,  and  in 

all  Bishops, 

fully  recog- 

lie  Presbyte- 

;ogni7.ed  the 
g  to  her  liv- 
1  a  subscrip- 

Pre^byterian 
lud  and  his 
t  practica  ly 
the  Ordinal, 

:  of  the  most 
•sin  :  "  If  at 
irches,  came 
iC  charge,  or 
(as  I  have 
I  instance  in 
eordain  him 
have  done  if 
lor  did  our 
)nsent  to  the 

Episcopacy." 
■ry  clearly  and 
lonsecralion  of 

who  maintain 


HAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED, 


4« 


religion  received  amongst  us,  and  to  subscribo  the  articles.**  The 
consentient  testimony  of  Bishops  Hall,  Burnet,  Fleetwood  and 
others,  might  be  given  if  time  permitted.     (See  Appendix  E.) 

The  reason  why  the  Reformers  did  not  choose  the  same  "plat- 
form of  government'' with  their  brethren  on  the  Continent,  was 
not  because  they  regarded  it  as  unscriptural,  but  in  the  words  of 
Bishop  Cooper,  a  learned  writer  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  simply  be- 
cause they  did  not  consider  it  suitable  to  "  the  state  of  our  country, 
people  and  commonwealth."     (Fisher,  p.  488.) 

Let  us  now  briefly  glance  at  the  changes  made  in  the  Ordinal  in 
1662. 

THE  WORD  "PRIEST"   INTRODUCED. 

The  Revisers  found  the  word  "  Minister"  used  to  denote  the 
Clergy  in  the  reign  of  Edward  and  Elizabeth.  In  the  Book  of 
1552  the  words  are  :  "  Absolution  to  be  pronounced  by  the  Min- 
ister alone."  As  the  prominent  Revisers  who  controlled  the  pro- 
ceedings, sympathized  with  Archbishop  Laud  in  his  sacerdotal 
views,  they  substituted  the  word  "Priest"  for  "Minis  r,"  and 
made  the  rest  of  the  book  conformable  as  far  as  was  in  their 
power.  Laud  had  surreptiously  introduced  the  word  "Priest" 
into  several  editions  of  the  Book  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I. 

Here  was  the  eighth  and  most  important  step  in  the  direction  of 
Rome. 

In  the  Revision  of  1552  the  form  for  Ordering  Priests  was  in 
this  wise :  "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  whose  sins  thou  dost  for- 
give,'&c.  In  1662  it  was  made  to  read  thus:  "Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Priest  in  the  Church  ot 
God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands , 
whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,"  &c. 

We  have  here  introduced,  for  the  first  time,  the  doctrine  of  the 
tactual  succession   of  the  Priesthood. 

In  the  Prayer  Book  of  1  Iward  we  have  "  the  form  of  Conse- 
crating of  an  Archbishop  or  Bishop,"  in  these  words:  "Take  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  God 
which  is  in  thee  by  imposition  of  hands,"  &c. 

The  title  was  changed  to  "the  form  of  Ordaining  or  Consecra- 
ting." The  early  Reformers  did  not  regard  the  Bishop  as  a  dis- 
tinct Order  from  the  Presbyter  by  the  authority  of  Scripture ;  but 
they  held,  with  Jerome,  that  Bishops  were  placed  above  Presbyters 
by  ecclesiastical  custom. 


;  JMMpMRlMM^^csnpi^ 


4i  liOlV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMOM  PRAYER 

The  form  of  Ordaining  was  thus  altered,  "Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of  God. 
now  committetl  unto  thee  by  the  imposition  of  our  hands,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  Amen.  And 
remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  God  which  is  given  thee 
by  this  imposition  of  hands.'' 

The  doctrine  of"  Transmitted  Grace"  is  here  plainly  as  erted. 
The  older  form,  it  is  true,  had  departed  from  the  simplicity  of 
the  early  Church.  Bu*  how  grievously  was  it  changed  for  the 
worse  by  these  daring  innovators.  Ought  we  to  be  surprised  at 
any  amount  of  Fuiscopal  or  Priestly  pretension  on  the  part  of  men 
who  have  ha*'  ch  unwarrantable,  and  I  fear  not  to  assert 
blasphemous,  wards  pronounced  so  solemnly  ovp-  *heir  heads  ? 

In  the  demoralised  and  distracted  condition  l.  /e  Anglican 
Episcopal  Communion,  wherever  it  has  been  planted,  we  may  see 
the  Lords  displeasure  at  such  proceedings ;  and  we  cannot  hope 
for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  this  Church  until  it  retraces  its 
steps,  revises  its  Liturgy,  and  makes  its  whole  system  conform- 
able to  Holy  Writ, 

PREFACE  TO  THE  ORDINAL. 

Having  thus  established  the  sacredotal  principles  of  Tactual 
succession,  and  Transmitted  grace  in  the  offices  for  Ordination  in 
order  to  make  the  Ministry  exclusive,  these  Counsellors  of  Charles 
turned  their  attention  to  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  which  read 
thus  :  "  No  man  (not  being  at  the  present.  Bishop,  Priest  or  Dea- 
con,) shall  execute  any  of  them,  (;.  e.  the  office  of  Bishop,  &c.,) 
except  he  be  called,  tried  and  examined,  and  admitted  according 
to  the  form  hereafter  following." 

This  was  made  to  read  thus  :  «  No  man  shall  be  accounted  or 
taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest  or  Deacon  in  the  Church  of 
England,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted 
thereunto,  according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had 
formerly  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordination." 

This  change  made  the  Church  henceforth  absolutely  and  inex- 
orably exclusive.  No  longer  could  the  Protestant  Ministry  of 
Scotland  or  of  the  Continent,  as  they  had  done  for  over  a  century, 
hold  livings  in  that  Church.  The  Church  is  not,  however,  absJ- 
lutely  exclusive.     There  is  one  notable  exception. 


u 


HAS  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


43 


ROMAN  ORDERS  ACKNOWLEDGED. 

In  the  words  of  Fisher,  p.  332  :  "  Our  Church — to  the  shame  of 
her  rulers,  and  to  the  disgrace  of  this  professedly  Protestant  na- 
tion, be  it  spoken— does  not  exclude  the  orders  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.       The  Romish  Priest  is  at  once  admitted,  without  any 
special  act  of  re-ordination,  to  officiate  at  her  most  solemn  services, 
and  to  partake  of  her  honors  and   emoluments.     In  this  particu- 
lar (and  it  is  a  mo.-,t  important  one)  the  present  Church  of  Eng- 
land is  not  the  Church  of  Cranmcr,  and  Ridley,  of  Bradford,  and 
Jewel,  Usher,  and  Hall,  but  a  very  ditTerent  institution."  On  this 
point  Isaac  Tayh  r  remarks  :  "  These  changes,  trilling  and  indiff- 
erent as,  perhaps,  they  seem  at  the  present  time,  struck  with  a 
deadly  malignity  at  the   points,  which,   to  the  Puritans,  seemed 
vital  points.      The  Puritans   held  that  a  B  shop  was  only  primus 
inter  parts:  that  is,  the  difference  be.ween  Bishops  and  Presbyters 
was  a  difference  oUlegrce,  not  a  difference  of  order;  or,  to  use 
the  words  of  Cranmer,  that  '  they  were  both  one  office  in  the  be- 
ginning of  Christ's  re  igion.'     In  the  reign  of  Edward  and  Eliza- 
beth, the  Church  of  England,  by  statute  as  well  as  in  praciice,had 
recognized    Presbyterian   Ordination.     At  the  close  of  the   six- 
teenth century,  'sco;es,  if  not  hundreds,'  of  Clergymen  were  offi- 
ciating in  the  Church  of  England  who  had  been  ordained  by 
Presb)  ters  in  Scotland,  or  on   the   Continent.     Now,  however,  a 
clause  was  inserted  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  asserting  the 
necessity  of  Episcopalian  Ordination,  and  consequently  denying 
the  validity  of  the  Orders  of  all  those  who  had  been  ordained 
during  the  last  fif.een  or  twenty  years.     This  Liturgical  cl.ange 
was  not  su  ered  to  remain  a  dead  letter.     The  Act  of  Uniformity 
deprived  of  their  Ministerial  character  all  who  had  received  Pres- 
byterian Ordination,  unless  by  consenting  to  Episcopal  re-ordina- 
tion they  would  agree  virtually  to  confess  the  nullity  of  their  pre- 
vious ministration.' 

One  motive  for  this  change,  t  is  plain,  was  to  drive  many  of  the 
ablest  Ministers  in  England  from  their  livings ;  for  they  could 
not  in  conscience  deny  the  Ministry  that  the  Lord  had  long  ac- 
knowledged and  blessed.  Said  John  Howe,  pre-eminent  among 
divines,  to  a  Bishop  who  remarked:  "  Pray, sir,  what  hurt  is  there 
in  being  twice  Ordained  ?"  "  Hurt,  my  Lord  ;  it  hurts  my  unJer- 
standing !  the  thought  is  shocking ;  it  is  an  absurdity,  since  noth- 


44 


IWJV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 


ing  can  have  two  beginnings.  I  am  sure  I  am  a  Minister  of 
Christ,  and  am  ready  to  debate  that  ma.ter  with  you,  if  your  lord- 
ship pleases ;  but  I  cannot  begin  again  to  be  a  Minister." 

PROi/ST  OF  THE  PURITANS. 
In  their  "Petitioi    'y  Peace  and  Concord,"  the  Non-conform- 
i_sts  thus  remonstrate :  "  We  doubt  not  but  you  know  how  new  and 
-range  a  thing  .t  is  that  you  require  in  the  point  of  re-ordination 
^'nen  a  canon  amongst  those  called  Apostolic,  deposeth  those 
that  re-ordam,  and  that  are  re-ordained  j  and  when  it  is  a  thing 
both  Papist  and  Protestant  condemn;  when  not  only  the  former 
Bishops  of  England,  that  were  more  moderate,  were  against  it,  but 
even  the  most  fervent  adversaries  of  the  Presbyterian  way,  such  as 
Bishop  Bancroft  himself;  how  strange  must  it  need  seem  to  the 
Reformed  Churches,  to  the  whole  Christian  world,  and  to  future 
generations,  that  so  many  able,  faithful  ministers  should  be  laid 
by  as  broken  vessels,  because  they  dare  not  be  re-ordained,  and  that 
so  many  have  been  just  upon  so  new  and  so  generally  disrelished  a 
thmg.       (Documents  relating  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  p.  166  ) 

But  all  protestations,  remonstrances,  and  arguments,  were  una- 
vailing, and  the  Book,  with  its  six  hundred  alterations,  many  of 
them  made  thus  designedly  offensive  to  the  Puritans,  was  imposed 
upon  all  ministers  for  subscription,  "  for  their  unfeigned  assent  and 
consent,  to  all  and  everything  "  contained  in  the  order  and  form  of 
words,  '^willingly  and  ex  animor     Two  thousand  who  had  con- 
science enough  to  refuse  to  subscribe,  were  driven  from  their  pul- 
pits to  wander  into  poverty,  ignominy,  and  contempt.  The  Church 
has  deservedly  suffered;  but  posterity  has  done  these  Christian 
heroes  justice,  and  America  mainly  built  on  their  principles   will 
ever  hold  them  up  for  the  reverence  and  admiration  of  mankind- 
and  we  shall  behold  them,  hereafter,  I  believe,  among  those  near- 
est the  throne  of  Gcd  and  the  Lamb!  As  I  earnestly  and  solemnly 
make  this  statement,  I  recall  the  touching  and  prophetic  declar 
ation  of  these  persecuted  saints :  « If  you  should  reject  (which  God 
forbid)  that  which  now  and  formerly  we  have  made,  we  humbly 
crave  leave  to  offer  it  to  your  consideration,  what  judgment  all  the 
Protestant  Churches  are  likely  to  pass  on  your  proceedings  and 
how  your  cause  and  ours  will  stand  represented  to  them  and  to 
all  succeeding  ages .'' ' 
If  those  glorified  brethren  could  look  down  from  the  presence 


HAS  BEEN  UN  PROTESTANTISED. 


45 


of  Jesus,  how  rejoiced  would  they  be  at  the  work  of  true  Reform 
in  which  you  have  been  permitted  to  engage ;  and  how  they  would 
encourage  you  to  proceed,  in  spite  of  every  obstacle,  and  the  op- 
position of  those  who  have  succeeded  to  the  princ.ples  ol  the  men 
who  thus  deformed  the  splendid  work  of  the  Reformers,  and  in- 
fused into  the  English  Liturgy,  for  the  first  time,  the  principles  of 
uncharitableness,  exclusiveness,  discord  and  schism.  "  Fear  not 
little  flock  it  is  your  Fa  her's  good  pleasure  to  give  you  the  King- 
dom."    "  Behold,  I  set  before  you  an  open  door,  and  no  man  can 

shut  it." 

RECAPITULATION. 

I  will  here  recapitulate  the  special  changes  made  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Rome  at  the  Final  Revision : 

First.  The  restoration  of  the  words  "  Sanctity  this  water  to  the 
mystical  washing  away  of  sin ; "  thereby  endorsing  the  doctrine  of 
Transelemcntation. 

Second.  The  assertion  of  "  Spiritual  Regeneration  "  in  the  Office 
for  Private  Baptism,  apart  from  sponsorial  promises. 

Third.  The  addition  of  the  Rubric,  wherein  Baptism  is  made 
the  ground  of  the  Salvation  of  Infants. 

Fourth.  The  addition  of  Lessons  from  the  Apocypha,  with  a 
Rubric  compelling  the  clergy  to  read  them. 

Fifth.  The  insertion  of  a  large  number  of  Saints'  Days  in  the 
Calendar,  including  the  names  of  some  Popes. 

Sixth.  The  reinsertion  of  the  Rubric  in  the  Communion  Office, 
with  the  change  of  the  words  read  and  essential  to  "corporal." 

Seventh.  The  change  in  the  exhortation  to  Communion,  in  which 
"allusion  to  the  word  of  God,''  as  a  co-ordinate  means  of  grace  is 
deliberately  stricken  out. 

Eighth.  The  substitution  of  the  word  "  priest "  for  "  minister." 

Ninth.  The  alterations  in  the  forms  for  Ordination  of  Bishops 
and  Priest,  whereby  are  taught  the  doctrines  of  transmitted  grace, 
and  tactual  succession. 

Tenth.  The  change  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  which 
acknowledged  the  orders  of  the  Roman  clergy,  and  denied  the 
lawfulness  of  the  Presbyterian  ordination. 

THE   RESULTS   OF  THE   FINAL   REVISION. 
Are  we  surprised,  in  view  of  such  changes,  that  over  two  thou- 
sand ministers  refused  to  subscribe  thereto  ?    Says  a  writer  in  the 


I'^l^iffWTIfMMli^^t  1L 


46  HO IV  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER 

Canadian  bicentenary  papers,  p.  ,8:  "  They  were  unanimous  in 
objecting  to  the  Apocryphal  I.essons.  They  could  not  use  a 
Baptismal  Service,  which  in  the  plain  intent  and  meaning  of  the 

rho  ; ;       pk'  .  '  "i  ^'''''''^  '"^'"^''  ^"  ''«  '^S«"«^^t«  by  the  Holy 
unost!       The  Confirmation  Service  staggered  them.     They  saw 
no  warrant  for  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  persons 
notoriously  unfit.     They  could  not  make  the  authoritative  and 
unconditional  declaration  of  absolution  to  all  such  persons  who 
profess  repentance.     Nor  could  they  road  the  sublime  and  touch- 
ing Burial  Serv  ce  indiscriminately  over  all  the  dead.     In  these 
things  they  agreed  ;  and  when  it  was  demanded  by  them  to  give 
heir     assent'  and  'consent'  to  what  they  believed  to  be  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  G<.d,  they  nobly  refused.     And  who  of  us  now 
does  not  honor  them  more  than  the  exalted  ecclesiastics  who  would 
impose  such  grevious  burdens  on  their  consciences,  or  those  who 
remained  to  serve  God  under  such  a  yoke  of  unscriptural  traditions, 
and  commandments  of  men?  ' 

"Imperative  indeed,  must  have  been  that  sense  of  duty  which 
led  a  Calamy,  the  most  popular  of  London  ministers;  a  Baxter  to 
whom  a  Bishopric  had  been  offered  ;  a  Howe,  with  his  clear  judg- 
ment and  elevated  piety;  a  Henry,  who  so  loved  his  work  that  the 
.     Sabbath  often  seemed  to  him  to  be  heaven  itself,  and  who  had  a 
concern  to  be  amon.T  the  '  quiet  of  the  land,'  that  he  might  prose- 
cute  his  bdoved  work  unmolested ;  and  such  kindred  spirits  as 
Owen,  and  Chamock,  and  Manton,  and  Bates,  and  Flavel   with 
o  hers,  forming  a  galaxy  of  gifted  and  saintly  men,  such  as  no  sin- 
gle age  before  or  since,  has  produced  I     Impemtive,  indeed,  must 
hat  sense  of  duty  have  been  which  compelled  them  simultaneously 
to  vacate  their  pulpits,  sacrifice  their  daily  bread,  and  go  forth  into 
a  cold  world  not  knowing  whither  they  went." 

"I  am  glad,"  said  one  who  lived  in  their  day,  and  who  was  not 
a  non-conformist,  "  I  am  glad  so  many  have  chosen  suffering  rather 
than  conformity  to  the  Establishment;  for  had  they  complied  the 
world  would  have  thought  that  there  had  been  nothing  in  religion  1 
but  now  they  see  that  there  are  some  who  are  sincere  in  their  pro- 
lessions.  *^ 

n  J'"  ^T  '^u°''"  ^°'"  '^'  'J''''°"  °^  '^^^«  C'^"«''3"  ministers  by 
professed  brethren,  was  properly  St.  Bartholomew's  Day-Au£.  i 

^Inllo^rT"''""'  "T'' ''  ''"P^^  ^"^'^^'^  Bartholomew.-' 
And  to  show  the  animus  of  the  men  who  were  tinkering  this  "in- 


fJA.'^!  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


47 


comparable"  Liturgy,  "the  time  was  fixed  at  such  a  part  of  the 
year  that,  if  they  did  not  conform,  they  would  lose  all  the  profits 
of  their  livings  for  that  year,  which  was  drawing  to  a  close."   When 
we  add,  that  the  Conventicle  Act  was  passed,  which  forbade  all 
meetings  for  religious  worship  contrary  to  the  order  of  the  Church 
of  England,  where  there  should  he  jive  persons  present,  besides 
the  members  of  the  family,  above  i6  years  of  age,  on  penalty  of  fine 
and  imprisonment ;  and  the  Five  Mile  Act,  which  forbade  any  of 
the  ejected  clergy  from  coming  within  five  miles  of  the  places  where 
they  had  been  "  parson,  priest,  or  vicar,"  under  pain  of  imprison- 
ment and  a  fine  of  fifty  pounds  for  each  offence ;  and  a  second  more 
rigorous  Conventicle  Act,  togetiier  with  the  Test  Act,  which  re- 
quired the  Lord's  Supper  to  be  taken  after  the  manner  of  the  Church 
of  England  by  all  persons  who  should  be  placed  in  any  office  or 
trust,  civil  or  military— the  contemplation  of  the  diabolical  work  of 
these  Commissioners  and  their  allies,  the  King  and  Parliament,  oc- 
cvsions  surprise  that  so  much  of  the  Christian  religion  remained  in 
the  Kingdom.     But  these  ejected  heroes  and  saints  employed  their 
eloquent  and  learned  pens  for  the  defence  and  confirmation  of  the 
Gospel.     And  it  has  been  truly  said :  "  Their  writings  have  erected 
to  their  memory  monuments  more  durable  than  brass  or  marble, 
which  have  so  perpjtuated  and  diffused  their  sentiments  and  spirit, 
that  had  their  enemies  anticipated  the  consequence  of  excluding 
thin  from  the  pulpit,  they  vr'ld  have  left  them  to  preach,  that 
tliey  might  have  had  no  leisure  to  write." 

We  conclude  our  remark  on  this  point,  designed  to  illustrate  the 
character  of  the  times  which  was  so  strongly  impressed  upon  the 
Book  that  now  received  its  final  Revision,  with  the  words  of  the 
celebrated  John  Locke,  a  most  compe'.ent  witness:  "  Immediately 
af.er  this  followed  the  'Act  of  Uniformity.'     This  the  clergy,  /.  e. 
the  greater  part,  readily  complied  with  ;  for  you  know  that  sort  f 
men  are  taught  rather  to  obey  than  understand,  and  to  use  thij 
learning  they  have  to  justify,  not  to  examine.     And  yet  that '  Bar- 
tholomew Day  '  was  fatal  to  our  church  and  religion,  in  throwing 
out  a  very  great  number  of  worthy,  learned,  pious,  and  orthodox 
divines,  who  could  not  come  up  to  this  and  other  diings  in  the  Act. 
And  it  is  upon  this  occasion  worthy  your  knowledge,  that  so  great 
was  the  zeal  in  carrying  on  this  church  affair,  and  so  blind  was  the 
obedience  required,  that  if  you  compute  the  time  of  the  passing  of 
this  Act,  with  the  time  allowed  for  the  clergy  to  subscribe  this  Book 


48        mrr  THE  moK  of  coAmoN  prayer 

of  Common  Prayer  thereby  established,  you  shall  find  it  could  not 
be  pruned  and  distributed  so  as  one  man  in  forty  could  have  seen 

h!.  .r  r.  ''^  ''^''' '°  P^'^^'^^y  ^'^^"^  =^"''  ^°"«^'"^  to.    It  is  a  fact 
hat  the  Common  Prayer  Book,  with  the  alterations  and  amend- 
ments made  by  the  Convocation,  did  not  come  out  of  the  press, 

coull'nor.  T  ^"^"  '''  '''''  °^  ^"S"^^'  ^^hen  those  who 
could  not  comply  with  its  requirements  were  elected  Irom  their 
livings." 

CONCr.USION. 
The  work  I  undertook  is  now  accomplished.     I  have  shown 
you,  in  the  words  of  the  address  of  the  Church  of  Ireland  Protest- 
ant Defence  Association  of  P:vangclical  Episcopalians,  that  "  The 
Trotestant  Prayer  Book,  the  second  of  Edward  VI.,  has  been  al- 
tered again  and  again  as  a  matter  0/ State  Policy,  in  the  direction 
of  Rome.     Some  would  have  us  regard  the  present  Prayer  Book 
as  a  sacred  relic  of  Antiquity,  framed  by  men  of  God,  according  to 
a  Scriptural  standard,  supported  by  Apostolic  authority;  whilst 
in  reality  we  are  in  the  humiliating  position  of  having  it  imposed 
upon  us,  as  it  has  been  corrupted  for  an  unholy  j  urpose,  by  the  im- 
perious Elizabeth,  by  the   vain   and  frivolous  James,  and  finally 
by  the  Romish  and  profligate  Charles-a  Prayer  Book  which  is  a 
combination  of  truth  and  error  j  of  light  and  darkness  ;  of  Prot- 
estantism  and  essential  Romanism  ;  Protestant  articles,  as  a  stand- 
ard of  faith,  and  Romish  formularies  which  rule  our  practice." 

And  thus  we  have  in  the  bounds  of  the  same  Church,  thre- 
great  sections:  Evatigelicals,  who  dissent  fram  the  theology  of 
the  Liturgy;  Tractanins,  who  dissent  from  the  theology  of  the  Art'- 
cles;  ^x^dihQ  Essayists,  ^^■\^o  dissent  from  the  theology  of  both 
Liturgy  and  Articles.  And  while  the  parties  are  wrangling  with 
each  other— a  sad  spectacle  to  men  and  angels— the  masses  out- 
side are  exposed  to  the  deadly  assaults  of  Scepticism  on  the  one 
side,  and  of  Romanism  on  the  other. 

If  time  would  allow,  I  would  like  to  speak  of  the  noble  attempt 
at  Reform  and  Comprehension  in  1189,  of  TiUotson,  Burnet, 
Stillmgfleet,  Patrick,  and  other  Divines,  under  William  III.,  of 
immortal  memory— a  reform  which,  though  iailing  at  that  time 
through  the  influence  of  the  Romanized  Prayer  Book  of  1662,  for 
a  generation,  nevertheless  formed  the  basis  of  the  American  Prayer 
Book  of  1785.  I  would  speak  also  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
present  Episcopal  Prayer  Book  was  infused  with  I  he  sacercfiDtal  ex- 


JfAS  BEEN  VNPROTFSTANTIZED. 


49 


elusive  non-juring  views  of  Bishop  Seabury,  and  how  since  then  the 
system  of  Canons  made  by  that  Church,  have  been  made  to  cor- 
respond with  the  same  principles  of  Sealjury  and  the  Divines  of 
Charles  II.  ;  and  then  I  would  show,  that  the  Prayer  Book  of 
Bishop  Cummins  and  the  friends  of  this  latest  Reform,  is  built 
much  upon  the  principle  of  the  Book  of  1785,  of  Wharton,  and 
Smith,  and  Provost,  of  Wattington,  and  Jay,  and  the  laymen  of 
the  Revolution,  of  the  Commissioners  of  1689,  and  of  Edward  and 
Hooper,  Brailford  and  Cranmer.  But  I  have  too  long  detained 
you  on  this  vitally  important  subject. 

TWO  REMARKS. 

With  two  remarks  I  close  my  theme. 

There  have  been  eight  prominent  Revisions  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer ;  four  in  the  interest  of  Tradition,  Ritualism,  and 
Low  Popery  or  Semi-Romanism  ;  four  based  on  Holy  Scripture, 
Spiritual  Christianity,  and  Protestantism. 

The  first >«r.-  the  Revision  of  Elizabeth,  1559;  of  James  1  , 
1604;  of  Charles  II.,  1662;  of  Bishop  Seabury,  1789;  which 
last  is  the  present  Book  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

The  other /c«r  .•  the  Revision  of  Edward  VI.,  1552;  of  Wil- 
liam III.,  1689;  of  Bishop  White,    1785;  of  Bishop  Cummins, 

1874. 

The  Revisions  of  Elizabeth,  of  James,  of  Charles,  and  Ser^ury, 
have  shaped  and  controlled  Protestant  Episcopacy  through  its 
whole  history,  from  the  tine  of  Elizabeth. 

The  Revision  of  Edward  was  in  use  but  one  year  ;  that  of  Wil- 
liarn  failed  to  become  the  law  of  the  1  .nd  through  the  intolerance, 
bigotry  and  ignorance  of  the  rural  r.ergy,  who  were  of  a  class 
like  the  Bourbons,  forgetting  nothing  and  learning  nothing ;  the 
Revision  of  Bishop  White,  was  in  use  but  four  years;  the 
llevision  of  Bishop  Cummins,  wliich  under  God,  is  destined  to  be 
the  Revision  of  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the  future.  There  is 
ground  for  this  confident  expectation,  because  this  latest  Book 
has  been  reconstructed  by  men  fully  competent  for  the  purpose, 
who  have  profited  by  all  the  experience  of  the  past,  avoiding  the 
mistakes  and  errors  which  have  cramped  and  dwarfed  the  Ameri- 
can Protestant  Episcopacy  into  one  of  the  smallest  sects  of  the 
nation,  a  sect  which  has  reached  its  climax,  and  is  destined  to  be 


•>w" 


i,>t!mtm-*o''**~mf,* 


f 


|o 


NOW  TJtE  noOK  OF  COAfAfOM  PRAYER 


superseded  by  the  legitimate  genuine  successor  of  the  Anglican 
Reformers. 

'ihe  Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Protestant 
masses  of  this  land,  will  stand  related  to  the  body  from  which  it 
has  emerged,  as  Christianity  stood  related  to  Judaism.  It  wi'l 
oppose  the  same  tendencies  lo  Ritualism,  tradition,  arrogance, 
and  exclusiveness,  which  prevaileil  in  the  Jewish  Communion  of 
the  first  century,  and  which  are  now  reproduced  with  suclistriliing 
similarity  In  the  I'rotestant  Episcopal  budy  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. 

'i'he  Reform  under  Bishop  Cummins  is  a  Schism,  precisely  as 
was  the  Reform  under  Archbishop  Cranmer,  a  cutting  loose  of 
men  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  an  emerging  into  clearei 
Gospel  light,  into  higher  spiritual  freedom. 

Men  intelligent,  unprejudiced  and  free,  in  accepting  Ep'sco- 
pacy,  will  not  long  hesitate  in  choosing  between  a  new  and  vigor- 
ous schism  based  on  the  Bible,  and  Truth  in  its  simplicity  and  in- 
tegrity, and  the  remains  of  an  old  and  declining  sch  sm,  based  on 
tradition  and  medievalism,  and  destined  to  recede  gradually  to 
the  hole  from  which  it  was  dug — between  a  Prayer  Book  the  fruit 
of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  and  one  the  result  of  the  unchiri- 
tableness  and  fraternal  discord  of  the  Civil  war  of  the  Common- 
wealth. 

Christianity  was  confined  at  one  time  to  an  upper  room,  "  the 
number  of  disciples  together  being  about  one  hundred  and  twenty." 

Israel  atone  time  tremb'ed  before  the  Philistine,  but  the  small 
smooth  stone  of  a  brave  Hebrew  youth,  directed  by  the  hand  of 
the  Almighty,  smote  the  giant.  God  was  with  Israel,  therefore 
Israel  triumphed. 

If  the  Reformed  Prayer  Book,  where  it  differs  from  the  one 
which  it  materially  modifies,  presents  Truth,  the  God  of  Truth, 
the  Living  Head  of  the  Church,  will  ble.ss  it.  He  who  controls 
the  hearts  of  men  will  draw  them  to  this  Body,  as  the  doves  crowd 
to  their  windows. 

No  weapons  for.ned  against  the  Truth  can  prosper.  Bishop 
Cummins,  by  a  Public  proclamation,  is  declared  deposed  from  the 
office  of  a  Bishop  in  the  House  of  God,  according  to  Protestant 
Episcopal  Law — a  law  based  on  Roman  Catholic  Custom,  but 
antagonistic  to  Protestant  principles.  The  next  week  a  whole  con- 
gregation of  Episcopalians,  a  vigorous  and  energetic  parish,  aban- 


-^1 


IfA8  BEEN  UNPROTESTANTIZED. 


St 


don#hat  communion,  ani  place  themselves  under  the  supervision 
of  this  vicum  of  ecclesiastical  law.  Your  pastor  is  to-night  en- 
couraging those  separatists  by  his  presence  and  counsel. 

Brethren,  take  courage !  The  skies  are  bright.  Never  did  an 
Fxclesia  tical  movement  have  such  an  encoura^jing,  hopeful  pros- 
pect before  it. 

You  are  greatly  honored  in  being  permitted  to  lead  the  enter- 
prise in  this  metropolis  of  the  continent.  Let  the  spirit  of  the 
Master  characterize  your  work  !  Like  the  Master  go  about  doing 
good.  Save  those  thai  are  ready  to  perish  !  Let  your  salt  have 
savor!  Let  your  lamp  have  oil!  Let  your  light  shine  so  as  to 
lead  others  to  Jesus !  And  thus  you  will  not  only  aid  in  removing 
detrimental  error,  which  has  encrusted  the  body  of  Christ,  but  you 
will  save  souls,  who  will  prove  your  crown  of  personal  rejoicing 
when  the  earthly  tabernacle,with  its  rites  and  ceremonies  has  given 
pla.e  to  the  house  not  made  with  hands  eternal  in  the  heavens. 


,,.^, 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX  A. 

From  the  "  Book  of  Sports."    Jeffreason's '  ■  Book  of  the  Clergy," 

II.  p.  135: 

«  Our  pleasure  likewise  is,  that  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  take 
the  like  straight  order  with  all  the  Puritans  and  Precisians  within 
the  same,  either  constraining  them  to  conform  themselves  or  leave 
the  country  according  to  the  laws  of  our  kingdom,  and  Canons  of 
our  church,  and  so  to  strike  equally  on  both  hands  against  the  con- 
temners of  our  autho  ity,  and  adversaries  of  our  church.  And  as  for 
our  good  people's  lawful  recreation,  our  pleasure  likewise  is,  that 
af:er  the  end  of  Divine  S:'rvice,  our  good  people  be  not  disturbed, 
letted  or  discouraged  from  any  lawful  recreation,  such  as  dancing, 
either  men  or  women,  archery  for  men,  leaping,  vaulting,  or  any 
other  harmless  recreation;  or  from  having  of  M.iy  games,  Whitsun- 
ales,and  moiris  dances,  and  the  setting  up  of  May  poles,  and  other 
sports  therewith  added,  so  as  the  same  be  had  in  due  and  conve- 
nient time,  without  impediment  or  neglect  of  Divine  service,  and 
that  the  women  shall  have  leave  to  carry  rushes  to  the  church  for 

the   decorating  of  it  according  to  their  old  custom 

And  we  further  will,  that  publication  of  this  our  command  be  made 
by  order  from  the  Bishops,  through  all  the  parish  churches  of 
their  several  dioceses  respectively." 

Jeffreason  remarks,  p.  132:  "Charles  followed  up  the  affair  of 
the  Somersetshire  wakes,  by  republishing  at  Laud's  suggestion, 
the  fatal  'Book  of  Sports,'  whereby  his  subjects  were  invite  J  to 
show  their  loyalty  to  their  King,  and  their  contempt  of  the  Puri- 
tans, by  spending  their  Sunday  afternoons  in  riotous  merriment. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  by  exasperating  the  Puritan  gentry 
and  commonality  against  the  Bishops,  by  demonstrating  to  intelli- 
gent Englishmen  how  completely  the  supreme  Head  of  the  Church 


54 


APPENDIX. 


was  a  puppet  in  the  hand  of  the  arrogant  and  fantastic  Primate, 
and  by  planting  in  the  minds  of  simple  folks  an  unreasonable  and 
unjust  conviction  of  their  Sovereign's  hostility  to  religion,  this 
untimely  republication  of  an  unwise  proclamation  did  more  than 
any  other  act  of  Charles'  long  career  of  blunders  to  bring  him  to 
the  scaffold." 

Richard  Baxter,  in  his  autobiography,  writes:  "When  I  heard 
my  own  father  so  reproached,  and  perceived  the  drunkards  were 
the  foremost  in  the  reproach,  1  perceived  it  was  their  malice ;  for 
my  father  never  scrupled  Common  Prayer  nor  ceremonies,  nor 
spake  against  the  bishops,  not  even  so  much  as  prayed  but  bv  a 
book  of  form,  being  not  even  acquainted  with  any  that  did  other- 
wise; but  only  for  reading  the  Scripture  and  the  life  to  come  he 
was  reviled  commonly  by  the  name  of  Puritan,  Precisian,  and  hypo- 
crite ;  and  so  were  the  godly  and  conformable  ministers  that  lived 
anywhere  m  the  country  near  us,  not  only  by  our  neighbors,  but 
by  the  qommon  talk  of  the  valgar  rabble  of  all  about  us," 

APPENDIX  B. 

Declaration  ok  Kinc  Ciiari.ks  at  Breda. 

"We  desiring  and  ordaining  that  henceforward  all  notes  of  dis- 
cord, separation,  and  difference  of  parties,  be  utterly  abolished 
among  our  subjects,  whom  we  invite  and  conjure  to  a  perfect  union 
among  themselves,  under  our  protection,  for  the  resettlement  of 
our  just  rights  and  theirs,  in  a  free  parliament,  by  which,  upon  the 
word  of  a  king,  we  will  be  advised. 

"And  because  the  passion  and  uncharitableness  of  the  times  have 
produced  several  opinions  in  rehgion,  by  which  men  are  engaged 
in  parties  and  animosities  against  each  other,  which,  when  they 
shall  hereafter  unite  in  a  freedom  of  conversation,  will  be  com- 
posed,  or  better  understood ;  we  do  declare  a  liberty  to  tender  con- 
sciences, and  that  no  man  shall  be  discpiieted  or  called  in  question 
for  differences  of  opinion  in  matters  of  religion  which  do  not  dis- 
turb the  peace  of  the  kingdom  ;  and  that  we  shall  be  ready  to 
consent  to  such  an  act  of  parliament  as,  upon  mature  deliberation 
shall  be  offered  to  us,  for  the  full  granting  that  indulgence." 

"  Given  under  our  sign  manual  and  privy  signet  at  our  Court  at 
Breder,  the  14th  day  of  April,  1660,  in  the  twelfth  year  ot  our 
reign." 


.•iiiiiiiiiiiiii  Kniirju  rimianfa^ „-.,?, 


APPENDIX. 


55 


In  October  of  the  same  year  the  king  "in  a  published  Declar- 
ation renewed  his  promise  at  Breda  for  religious  toleration." — 
Stephen's  Introduction,  p.  i66. 

APPENDIX  C. 

The  Demands  of  the  Puritan  Party. 

At  the  restoration  of  Charles  II.,  the  Puritans  urged  upon  him 
"the  utility  of  a  general  religious  union,  and  that  it  could  only  be 
effected  by  confining  the  terms  of  Communion  to  pomts  wliich 
were  deemed  essential,  each  party  conceding  the  rest ;  "  and  they 
subsequently  transmitted  their  proposals  in  writing  to  the  King. 
These  proposals  commenced  by  four  preliminary  requests ;  that 
serious  godliness  might  be  countenanced — that  a  learned  and  pious 
minister  in  each  parish  should  be  encouraged— that  a  personal  pub- 
lic owning  of  the  baptismal  covenant  should  precede  the  admission 
to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  that  the  Lord's  Day  should  be  strictly 
sanctified.  They  then  intimated  that  Archbishop  Usher's  system 
of  Episcopal  government  should  be  the  groundwork  of  the  accom- 
modation. 

This,  in  general  terms,  provided  that  the  concerns  of  the  church 
should  be  transacted  by  four  Graduated  Synods  and  a  National 
Council.  First,  a  parochial  synod ;  second,  a  suffragan  synod ; 
third,  a  diocesan  synod ;  fourth,  a  provincial  synod ;  fifth,  the 
union  of  the  provincial  synods  to  constitute  a  National  Council. 

This  "  scheme  was  accompanied  by  proposals  in  which  the  dis- 
senting ministers  acquesed  in  a  Liturgy ;  but  without  absolutely 
rejecting  the  surplice,  the  use  of  the  cross  in  Baptism,  the  bowing 
at  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  other  ceremonies,  they  observed  that  the 
Church  Service  was  perfect  without  them ;  that  they  were  rejected 
by  most  of  the  Protestant  Churches  abroad,  and  that  they  had 
been  the  cause  of  much  disunion  and  disturbance  in  England. 
They  requested  that  none  of  the  r  ministers  might  be  ejected  from 
sequestered  livings,  the  incumbents  of  which  were  dead ;  that  no 
oaths,  subscriptions,  or  renunciation  of  orders,  might  be  required 
of  them,  until  there  should  be  a  general  settlement  of  the  religious 
concerns  of  the  nation."  (See  Stephens'  Notes  on  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  Introduction,  p.  162-3-4.) 

The  eight  following  points  were  objected  to  by  the  Non- Con- 
formists, as  contrary  to  the  word  of  God : 


HiHii 


I 


S6 


APPENDIX. 


1.  That  no  ministers  be  admitted  to   baptise  without  the  pre- 
scribed use  of  the  transie.it  image  of  the  cross 

2.  That  no  rninister  be;.ermitted  to  read,or  pray, or  exercise  the 
other  parts  of  his  office,  that  does  not  wear  a  surpL-ce. 

3-  That  none  be  admitted  in  communion  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
that  does  not  receive  it  kneeling;  and  that  all  ministers  be  en- 
joined to  deny  it  to  such. 

4.  That  ministers  be  forced  to  pronounce  all  baptised  infants 
to  be  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whether  they  be  the  children 
ot  Christians  or  not. 

5.  'l^hat  the  ministers  be  forced  to  deliver  the  Sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  unto  the  unfit,  both  in  their  health  and 
sickness;  and  that  with  personal  application  putting  it  into  their 
hands;  and  that  such  are  forced  to  receive  it,  though  against  their 
own  wills  in  the  conscience  of  their  impenitency. 

6.  That  ministers  be  forced  to  absolve  the  unfit,  and  that  in 
absolute  expressions. 

7.  That  they  are  forced  to  give  thanks  for  all  whom  they  bury 
as  brethren,  whom  God  in  mercy  hath  delivered  and  tal;en  to 
himself. 

8.  That  none  may  be  a  preacher  that  does  not  believe  that  there 
IS  nothing  in  the  Prayer  Book,  the  Book  of  Ordination,  and  30 
Articles,  that  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  (Baxter's  life  bv 
Sylvester,  b.  I.,  pt.  II.,  p.  34X.)  '    ^ 

APPENDIX  D. 

Among  modern  Episcopal  writers  who  support  the  views  with 
respect  to  the  origin  of  Episcopal  government  presented  in  these 
lectures,  are  Riddle,  author  of  Christian  Antiquities,  Commema- 
nes  on  the  Bible  and  Prayer  Book,  and  a  Greek  Lexicon  ;  Dean 
Goode  in  his  "  Rule  of  Faith,"  and  his  work  on  "  Orders;  "  Litton 
Professor  of  History  at  Oxford,  in  his  work  on  the  "Church  of 
Christ;  'Harrison  on  the  "Church  of  the  Fathers,'  which  is  the 
most  exhaustive  work  yet  written  on  the  subject;  Dean  Stanley  in 
his  account  of  the  "  Church  of  AIe.xandria,"  in  his  "  Histo.y  of  the 
Eastern  Church;"  Lightfoot,  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  in 
h;s     Dissertations  "  attached  to  his  notes  on  Philippians ;  Jacob  in 
his  masterly  work  on  "  Ecclesiastical  Polity;"  Mossman  in  his 
History  of  the  Catholic  Churcli  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  first  two 


APPENDIX, 


57 


Centuries;"  Dean  Alford,  in  his  Commentaries;  and  Professor 
Smith,  in  liis  Bible  Dictionary,  have  presented  practically  the 
same  view.  In  this  country,  we  have  Dr.  Stone's  work  on  the 
"Church  Universal,"  Vx.  Sparrow's  sermon  on  the  "Christian 
Priesthood. ■'  Among  the  laity  are  Ganatt  on  the  "Constitu- 
tion of  ihe  Christian  Ciiurch ; "  Seely's  «  Essays  on  the  Church ;" 
Bowdler  on  "Apos'.olic  Succession,"  and  Dr.  Ira  Warren's  work 
entitled  "The  Cause  and  Cure  of  Puseyism." 

The  concessions  of  ihis  great  body  of  eminent  and  learned 
Episcopalians  render  all  efforts  to  sustain  exclusive  views  of  Epis- 
copacy futile  and  hoi  eless. 

APPENDIX  E. 
One  remarkable  instance  on  record  shows  conclusively  what 
were  the   views  held  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  wiih  respect  to 
Presbyterian  orders.     It  is  the  license  given  to  John  Morrison,  a 
Scotch  Presbyterian  minister,  by  Archbishop  Grindal,  to  exercise 
all  the  functions  of  the  ministry  without  reordination.     The  license 
says  :  William  Aubrey,  Doctor  of  Laws,  legally  exercising  ihe  office 
of  Vicar  General  in  S;.iritual,and  of  Chief  Functionary  of  the  Arclv 
bishopric  of  Canlerbury,  to  our  beloved  in  Christ,  John  Morrison, 
M.  A.,  born  in  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland,  eternal  health  in  the  Lord. 
Wh.reas,  We  have  heard  on  credible  testimony  that  you,  the 
aforesaid  John  Morrison,  about  five  years  past,  in  the  town  of  Garvet, 
in  ihc  couniy  of  Lothian  in  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland,  was  admitted 
and  ordained  to  Holy  Orders  and  the  sacred  ministry,  by  the  impo- 
sition o:  hands,  according  to  the  laudable  ibrm  and  rite  of  tlie  Re- 
formed Church  of  Scotland;  and  where  is  the  said  congregation 
of  that  county  of  Lothian  is  conformable  to  the  orthodox  fai'.h 
and  pure  religion  now  received,  and  by  public  authority  estab- 
lished in  this  realm  of  England  ;  we  tlierefore  approving,'  and  rat- 
ifying as  iar  as  in  us  lies,  and  by  right  we  may,  the  form  of  your  or. 
dination  and  advancement  to  tliis  function  alone  in  the  manner 
aforesaid,  grant  and  impart  to  you  in  the  Lord,  with  ail  good  will, 
as  fivr  as  in  us  lies  and  by  right  we  may,  and  with  the  consent  and 
mandate  of  the  most  reverent  Father  in  Christ,  pAlnumd,  by 
Divine.  Providence  Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Primate  ot 
all  England  and  ^Metropolitan,  to  us  signified,  license  and  faculty 
in  these  orders  by  you  taken,  to  celebrate  divine  offices,  to  admin- 
ister the  Sa.ramen's,  and  purely  and  sincerely  preach  the  word  of 


58 


APPENDIX. 


God,  either  in  the  Latin  or  vulgar  tongue,  according  to  the  talents 
which  God  hath  given  you. 

In  testimony  whereof  we  have  caused  the  seal  which  we  use  in 
like  cases  to  be  affixed  to  these  presents.  Given  the  sixth  day  of 
April,  1582. 

The  expression,  "  in  cases,''  in  this  precise  legal-like  document 
proves  that  the  custom  of  thus  licensing  Presbyterian  ministers 
prevailed  at  that  time. 

As  the  Church  of  Scotland  was  then  Presbyterian,  and  no  bishops 
Episcopally  ordained  held  office  in  that  country,  the  case  is  settled 
beyond  contradiction.  On  this  case  of  Morrison,  Hopkins  in  his 
work  entitled  "  The  Puritans  and  Queen  Elizabeth,"  vol.11.,  p. 
112,  remarks:  "Whether  other  like  licenses  were  issued  or  not,  one 
such  high  official  document  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose  ;  as  deci- 
sive as  fifty.  So  clear  is  it  taken  from  the  Statute  Book,  and  from 
the  practice  of  the  English  Church,  that  at  least  till  15C2,  the 
general  sentiment  of  that  church  '  approved  and  ratified '  other 
ountains  of  priestly  virtue  than  its  own,  and  acknowledged  other 
than  the  hands  of  mitred  heads  as  having  the  ordaining  power." 

This  case  settles  the  point,  that  the  dispute  concerning  Travers 
and  Whittingham  of  the  same  reign,  was  not  with  regard  to  the 
matter  of  their  Presbyterian  orders,  but  on  account  of  irregulari- 
ties of  another  sort. 

These  statements  are  taken  from  a  series  of  articles  in  defense  of 
Bishop  Cummins'  statement,  prepared  by  the  writer  of  these  Lec- 
tures, and  signed  "  Ilistoricus." 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  1874,  liy  Mason  G.aixaghbR, 
in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Wosliington. 


^i  :A' 


mm>*^mmmmmm^Mi:- 


